• 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

5 hours later, pages of rationalizations to defend against the questioning of an obvious generalization.

Someone has some time on their hands, today.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
I am beginning to suspect that Trump decided to remove all transgendered individuals from the military simply because that statement fit in a tweet, whereas anything more reflective of reality, more fair, more just, more desirable, or more nuanced would have exceeded the character limit. Thus Trump's policy is determined by what he can state in 140 characters. Scary in terms of military action, right? Think how much easier it is to tweet "We are nuking..." then any complex statement of diplomatic action!
 
So....Has anyone yet figured out a fact-based justification of Trump's tweet/policy change?
 
What did I say made you think I have a problem with the situation? Jeff Bezos isn't my CEO. That doesn't mean I have some existential issue with Amazon.

You are a customer of Amazon, or Coca Cola, you are not a customer of the US Government (something Governments seem to forget a lot) rather they are your representative, you, and all other citizens of the US, are their employer.

The President is a representative of the entire country, thus as you are a citizen of the country, he is your representative. He is also the top public servant, and so your employee, so yes he is your president as he is employed by you to represent you. This is a totally different relationship to that of a CEO of a company you are a customer of.

Sadly, most of our politicians like to conveniently forget these facts until an election is rolling around.
 
Last edited:
You are a customer of Amazon, or Coca Cola, you are not a customer of the US Government (something Governments seem to forget a lot) rather they are your representative, you, and all other citizens of the US, are their employer.

The President is a representative of the entire country, thus as you are a citizen of the country, he is your representative. He is also the top public servant, and so your employee, so yes he is your president as he is employed by you to represent you. This is a totally different relationship to that of a CEO of a company you are a customer of.

Sadly, most of our politicians like to conveniently forget these facts until an election is rolling around.

Not my employee. Representative is a meaningless statement. If he so chooses not to represent me, and I choose to not consider it a factor, there is nothing in the system that a person with the title representative has some obligation to represent. The office is only the actual rules.
 
So let's skip him and actually focus on people with an opinion on the issue.

No. It is Trump's tweet that is being discussed here and his rationale for wanting to ban transgenders. We should be focusing on that and the facts that refute his arguments.
 
No. It is Trump's tweet that is being discussed here and his rationale for wanting to ban transgenders. We should be focusing on that and the facts that refute his arguments.

Trump doesn't have an argument to refute. He is not capable of having an opinion on an issue outside himself.
 
Trump doesn't have an argument to refute. He is not capable of having an opinion on an issue outside himself.

He obviously has opinions. They are just not based on facts, logic, or any kind of consistent reasoning. His opinions matter, only for the fact that he has the power to influence policy. Also, the title of the thread is very explicit that this discussion is about Trump's tweet.
 
I am beginning to suspect that Trump decided to remove all transgendered individuals from the military simply because that statement fit in a tweet...


Didn't it actually take two or three tweets? It was reported that military-related officials were rather nervous about what Trump was announcing for the roughly 9 minutes between his first and second tweets.
 
Not my employee.

Sadly for you he is. You pay his salary (well part of it) and you have a say in whether or not his contract is renewed, as citizen, you are his employer, as you are all public servants, you're just one of 300 million of them.
 
Sadly for you he is. You pay his salary (well part of it) and you have a say in whether or not his contract is renewed, as citizen, you are his employer, as you are all public servants, you're just one of 300 million of them.

None of that equates to being an employee. The process is spelled out entirely in the Constitution. There is no value in comparisons or analogies.
 
Irrelevant.

I'll take that as a yes :)

And it's relevant enough, if you choose to participate in a president-producing ritual, and the ritual succeeds in producing a president, then you don't get to complain afterwards about it "not being your president." You wanted a master and you got one.
 
I am beginning to suspect that Trump decided to remove all transgendered individuals from the military simply because that statement fit in a tweet, whereas anything more reflective of reality, more fair, more just, more desirable, or more nuanced would have exceeded the character limit. Thus Trump's policy is determined by what he can state in 140 characters. Scary in terms of military action, right? Think how much easier it is to tweet "We are nuking..." then any complex statement of diplomatic action!

Trump is likely functionally illiterate. Big words confuse him. So everything has to be handed to him in bite-size chunks, much like a tweet, which naturally means he jumps to conclusions before he has all the data. And also means he jumps right to Twitter to post his decisions because he can shorten everything. So you're probably at least partially right in your assessment.
 

Back
Top Bottom