Trump - no transgender people will serve in U.S. military: Twitter

[Bill Miller]

6 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Many Trump haters are just using this 'anti-Liberal' move as an excuse to complain and abuse Trump.

I will leave the debate with them to others who are doing very well.

 

In my view this is a correct decision by Trump (yet another).

Just like the idiotic liberal regulation passed by Obama allowing males in females toilets, the removal of the ban on Transgenders in the Military by Obama was liberal lunacy.The issue has nothing to do with discrimination, it is about not allowing certain people with certain  'issues' to serve in the Military. It is about many things from morale to costs, but it is not about the person. Being too short or too tall, having diabetes or skin disorders, flat feet etc. are just some of the many many reasons why some people are not allowed to serve.  

 

IMO what happened is that the Generals (all) approached Mattis and asked him to withdraw the Obama rule because it was causing lots of problems and was getting serious. Mattis put a temporary ban and took the issue to Trump, and one month later he decided to remove the Obama regulation. Seems to me that was the right decision - and if any of the senior Generals comes out and states that he disagrees with Trump, I will stand corrected (extremely unlikely).

 

And therein lies the truth of the matter - Trump did what the military leaders wanted having assessed the issues, and Obama did what they didnt want and ignored their issues.  Trump IS the Commander-in-Chief and unlike Obama, he is very much in support of the USA military and what they stand for and what they do.

 

The list is below - it is not discrimination - it is rationale.

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

 

 

An abundance of right wing horse puckey, right here.
In point of fact Trump consulted NOBODY on the matter, and the tweets were the first that the Pentagon knew about any of this, including Mattis who is on vacation.
Trump wants to free up the rather small amount of money dedicated to military transgender medical issues to put in the pot for The Great Wall....

"It has since been reported that Trump’s snap decision to impose this ban was a way to get funding for his Mexican border wall, as some House Republicans wanted to stop funding for military reassignment surgeries and were threatening to derail the spending bill because of it."

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, p_brownstone said:

 

Totally agree.

 

The Military should be a fighting / defensive force - not a platform for social experiment.

 

Patrick

 

Equality is a social experiment?  Are you posting from the 19th century?

[Thakkar]

17 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Many Trump haters are just using this 'anti-Liberal' move as an excuse to complain and abuse Trump.

I will leave the debate with them to others who are doing very well.

 

In my view this is a correct decision by Trump (yet another).

Just like the idiotic liberal regulation passed by Obama allowing males in females toilets, the removal of the ban on Transgenders in the Military by Obama was liberal lunacy.The issue has nothing to do with discrimination, it is about not allowing certain people with certain  'issues' to serve in the Military. It is about many things from morale to costs, but it is not about the person. Being too short or too tall, having diabetes or skin disorders, flat feet etc. are just some of the many many reasons why some people are not allowed to serve.  

 

IMO what happened is that the Generals (all) approached Mattis and asked him to withdraw the Obama rule because it was causing lots of problems and was getting serious. Mattis put a temporary ban and took the issue to Trump, and one month later he decided to remove the Obama regulation. Seems to me that was the right decision - and if any of the senior Generals comes out and states that he disagrees with Trump, I will stand corrected (extremely unlikely).

 

And therein lies the truth of the matter - Trump did what the military leaders wanted having assessed the issues, and Obama did what they didnt want and ignored their issues.  Trump IS the Commander-in-Chief and unlike Obama, he is very much in support of the USA military and what they stand for and what they do.

 

The list is below - it is not discrimination - it is rationale.

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html

 

 

"IMO what happened is that the Generals (all) approached Mattis and asked him to withdraw the Obama rule because it was causing lots of problems and was getting serious. "

 

IMO what happened was that Trump had a brain fart of an idea to distract everyone from the Russia/Trump Campaign collusion investigation. It didn't matter who he hurt as long as it was a hot button issue that would serve his purpose of distraction.

 

T

 

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, p_brownstone said:

 

Totally agree.

 

The Military should be a fighting / defensive force - not a platform for social experiment.

 

Patrick

There have been many transgenders who have fought on the front line. Have you? If you had you would realise that what you said is garbage. We had a Helicopter gunner who was transgender and i would have taken her into battle (and she did go into battle) anytime over the likes of you or tomwct who you replied to. And nobody on the squadron gave a frakk about any gender issue. The issue was can you trust people and can they do the job.

[iReason]

Pentagon on Transgender Military Service Ban: 'Call the White House'

 

"(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon seems to have been unaware that President Donald Trump has decided to bar transgender people from the military."

 

"A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, refused to answer questions about what Trump's tweeted announcement means for the current policy, including whether transgender people already serving in the military will be kicked out."

 

"Call the White House," he said.

http://time.com/4874546/pentagon-transgender-military-service-president-donald-trump/

Trump announcement on transgender troops surprises Pentagon

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-announcement-transgender-troops-surprises-pentagon

[kannot]

6 hours ago, dutchisaan said:

Yes, he was voted in, but on lies and hate. To many people love to blaim other groups for the mistakes they make in their lives. And the way Trump is going, you better not be in a other group that he shows his hatred on. That will be a lousy waking up moment by twitter.

But, than he was voted in legally, so now it's time to get him the <deleted> out, legally.

The only problem is that Trump doesn't understand the word legally, maby you can tweet him and explain it to him.

They ALL  lie

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, kannot said:

They ALL  lie

 

Oh, well it's okay then.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, kannot said:

They ALL  lie

Not nearly as much as trump, dude. 

 

 

Quote

 

T r u m p ’ s   L i e s

Many Americans have become accustomed to President Trump’s lies. But as regular as they have become, the country should not allow itself to become numb to them. So we have catalogued nearly every outright lie he has told publicly since taking the oath of office. Updated July 21: The president is still lying, so we've added to this list, and provided links to the facts in each case.

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jingthing

[Thakkar]

47 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

"I will fight for... your freedoms and beliefs." Said the occupier of the White house.

 

You're just spinning around in circles.

"we the people." All of them.

 

Your dear leader once again, completely reverses himself. No surprize there, I've lost count...

 

Ya got nothin'

 

BTW, your bone spurs?

Surgery or not?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Because you reversed yourself completely just like your dear leader. 

Within hours.

 

"Within hours"

 

Give the the guy a break. He'll get better and soon, just like his Dear Leader, he'll be able to reverse himself within the same sentence.

 

T

[Bill Miller]

4 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

There have been many transgenders who have fought on the front line. Have you? If you had you would realise that what you said is garbage. We had a Helicopter gunner who was transgender and i would have taken her into battle (and she did go into battle) anytime over the likes of you or tomwct who you replied to. And nobody on the squadron gave a frakk about any gender issue. The issue was can you trust people and can they do the job.

Exactly.
Only a bunch of ignorant folks would assume that a transgender or gay person is incapable of being part of a "...fighting / defensive force ...".
I only know one personally that I am aware of, and I would back that former Marine against any three of the know nothing bohunks that are running down transgender people for no reason other than blind prejudice. She is STILL one tough gunny.

[Thakkar]

6 minutes ago, kannot said:

They ALL  lie

"All sides do it" is a BS argument that aims to sneakily shift the discussion from the specific lies of a specific topic of discussion to a meaningless generalization. The fact is, "all sides" DON'T do it.

 

When you say, "they all lie" - what are we to make of that? That we should not chastise anyone or call them out for particular lies in particular instances because "all politicians lie" so we should just disengage? Be completely cynical? Not care?

 

Each instance of lying needs to be called out on its own demerits, exposed and chastised and the liar held to account, not be allowed to slide on the baseless presumption that "they all do it"

 

It must also be noted that not all lies are equal. There are white lies, lies of omission, lies to avoid embarrassment, lies to deceive, scurrilous lies, misdirection, nefarious lies, and outright bullish!t. To lump them all together as "they all lie" is to equate a white lie with a scurrilous lie; to treat them the same, shrug and move on, thus letting the scurrilous liar escape accountability.

 

T

[Caps]

51 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

If you spent 4-6 operational tours in close quarter combat listening to the sound of artillery , seeing mates blown up, shot in the head or belly you would have erectile dysfunction as the MINIMUM of your problems. It is almost impossible to return home from that and live a normal life again. Not everyone gets erectile dysfunction or PTSD but a huge amount do.

4 to 6 tours, wow is that all, i lost count 

[Bill Miller]

"There are three kinds of lie: lies, damned lies, and Trump tweets.'
A tip of the hat to S. Clemens, who erroneously attributed the original to Disraeli.

[Thakkar]

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

 

"Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money."

 

After being ignored by Mattis, they went to Trump. He obliged. On twitter.

 

"The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military."

 

They asked for a chair, he gave them the whole dining set. The Great Negotiator.

 

T

 

 

[iReason]

Conservatives lobbied White House on transgender policy but total ban wasn't what they asked for

 

"Republicans on Capitol Hill are scrambling to respond to President Donald Trump's announcement Wednesday to reinstitute a ban on transgender people serving in the military after conservatives who lobbied the White House say they were pushing only to prevent the Pentagon from paying for medical costs associated with gender confirmation -- not an outright ban."

 

"Trump's decision, announced Wednesday on Twitter and sparking bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill, comes after the White House was lobbied by conservatives on the issue, including Rep. Vicky Hartzler, who proposed an amendment on the defense authorization bill to ban the Pentagon from paying what Hartzler called "transition surgeries," as well as hormone therapy."

 

"House Republican leaders knew the White House was already looking to change policy related to transgender people, but only as it relates to how or whether taxpayer money is being used for medical treatments, two Republican leadership sources told CNN."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/congress-transgender-policy/index.html

 

The inept one strikes again. OUT.

 

[rijb]

22 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

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

 

"Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money."

 

After being ignored by Mattis, they went to Trump. He obliged. On twitter.

 

"The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military."

 

They asked for a chair, he gave them the whole dining set. The Great Negotiator.

 

T

 

 

The Commander-in-Chief giving orders to the most powerful military in the world, using Twitter.  Disgusting!

[Jingthing]

Is there anything trump can do anymore that would shock and be the last straw for the complicit republicans?

 

It's like this is a grand game for him.

[Prbkk]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Is there anything trump can do anymore that would shock and be the last straw for the complicit republicans?

 

It's like this is a grand game for him.

If Scaramucci is correct in his twitter assertion that Priebus is the leaker then it would seem the undermining is coming from within. I truly hope so.

In the same article the BBC characterises the White House as being like the final scene of Reservoir Dogs ( in which they all turn on each other).

The bloated horror will be gone by Christmas.

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

If Scaramucci is correct in his twitter assertion that Priebus is the leaker then it would seem the undermining is coming from within. I truly hope so.

In the same article the BBC characterises the White House as being like the final scene of Reservoir Dogs ( in which they all turn on each other).

The bloated horror will be gone by Christmas.

The difference is, Resevoire Dogs had smart dialogue, but less blood. And no treason.

 

T

[CharlieH]

A Troll style post and responses to it, and quoting it, have also been removed.

[Andaman Al]

45 minutes ago, Prbkk said:

If Scaramucci is correct in his twitter assertion that Priebus is the leaker then it would seem the undermining is coming from within. I truly hope so.

In the same article the BBC characterises the White House as being like the final scene of Reservoir Dogs ( in which they all turn on each other).

The bloated horror will be gone by Christmas.

Trump was known for leaking information about himself to the press when in New York.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/donald-trump-fake-names/

 

The guy is a head case and in this fantasy nightmare world he and Bannon are creating I would put absolutely nothing past him.

[Andaman Al]

11 minutes ago, Caps said:

....and whys that then, please give me your great wisdom.  my first post was tongue in cheek hense the coffee icon at the end, i dont want or need lectures especially when I have been in those situations.   

Tongue in cheek would have been a wink a drinking coffee is 'you are boring me now frakk off'. If you have been in those situations then you display an incredible lack of empathy for your brothers in arms who returned home and owing to their experiences will never quite be the same again. And post war/operational theatre there should not even be a discussion  about what it costs to make them well again or feel some self esteem again. They were willing to put their lives at risk and we have bozo's on here who have never got out of their arm chairs complaining about costs of curing erectile dysfunction which in these mens cases is a direct result of PTSD. This thread was about "no transgender people will serve in U.S. military", YOU brought up medical costs associated with erectile dysfunction. Lets hope you never get it, or you will be straight down to the shop for some viagra yourself. And remember free medical care for serving military is a perk of the job it is part of the covenant the Government must honour in asking people to potentially die for their country. Do you remember that from your service?? if not, you were never in and if you do remember then why on earth would you even question it?

Edited July 27, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Caps]

1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:

Tongue in cheek would have been a wink a drinking coffee is 'you are boring me now frakk off'. If you have been in those situations then you display an incredible lack of empathy for your brothers in arms who returned home and owing to their experiences will never quite be the same again. And post war/operational theatre there should not even be a discussion  about what it costs to make them well again or feel some self esteem again. They were willing to put their lives at risk and we have bozo's on here who have never got out of their arm chairs complaining about costs of curing erectile dysfunction which in these mens cases is a direct result of PTSD. This thread was about "no transgender people will serve in U.S. military", YOU brought up medical costs associated with erectile dysfunction. Lets hope you never get it, or you will be straight down to the shop for some viagra yourself. And remember free medical care for serving military is a perk of the job it is part of the covenant the Government must honour in asking people to potentially die for their country. Do you remember that from your service?? if not, you were never in and if you do remember then why on earth would you even question it?

another great lecture from your armchair, thank you for enlightening me, have a great day 

[rijb]

2 minutes ago, Caps said:

another great lecture from your armchair, thank you for enlightening me, have a great day 

I don't know about the armchair.  But, I'll bet it's in front of a mirror.  

[Andaman Al]

5 minutes ago, Caps said:

another great lecture from your armchair, thank you for enlightening me, have a great day 

Intelligent answer - not! I don't think you have ever done a days service in your life. Why not change your name to Walter.

[Becker]

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

What about bum sex with a woman?  Most of us have been there sometime or another.

True. Just did it with a German woman and hit it out of the ball park - she gave me a 9 out of 10.

She actually kept yelling "nine, nine, nine!"

 

PS. Someone please explain that (rather crude) joke to the man-child base posters as they might need a little help.

[Caps]

Just now, Andaman Al said:

Intelligent answer - not! I don't think you have ever done a days service in your life. Why not change your name to Walter.

Ok, you are entitled to believe what you want, believe me I wont loose any sleep over it 

[thaihome]

I would like to point out that if the US did not have an all volunteer professional military  capable of supporting simultaneous wars of 16 and 14 years duration  (first in the entire 250+ year history) and instead depended on the draft to support pointless invasions of sovereign countries,  this entire discussion would be moot. 

TH 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[Kieranmc]

From Sgt. Robert Brown US      

 

Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

 

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

 

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

 

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups?

 

Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?

 

All can be reasons for denial.

 

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.

 

Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

 

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.

 

I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself.

 

The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

 

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detracts from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?