Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

StringerBell

frostyjacks wrote: »

It was ludicrous allowing them to serve in the military in the first place. Common sense is making a come back.

No, that's ^^^^ ludicrous

What does it matter who is in the military? Man or woman.

dudara

I think it's a very retrograde step, which is typical of Trump and the GOP at the moment.

So what if someone is transgender? That does not automatically equal mental illness. It's utter boll*xogy to declare that all transgender people are unstable. Every case and individual is unique and deserves the chance to be based on their own merits.

This decision undoes a lot of positive work in one foul swoop. It encourages a broad sweeping hatred for a small group of society. And what's even scarier is that when all the small groups are marginalised, all that's left are the big groups. And you'd better hope you belong to the right big group...

StringerBell

Of the two, Trump and Pence, I said before the election and would still probably feel the same now. That Pence would actually be more dangerous to America if he became President.

Trump is something of a lame duck President, sure he spouts a lot of rubbish, he intends to do a lot of stuff I would consider negative but he so far at least has gotten very little done. The Supreme Court pick aside, and that was a big one lets be honest with long consequences. The truth is that he also doesn't care very much and is a RINO, he likes being the man, flying on Air Force One, meeting world leaders and enriching his personal empire. He just wants to get wins but doesn't actually have any firm policy stances that he would not flip at a moments notice.

Pence I feel would be better at pushing their agenda through. He has clear defined beliefs and ideas that he wants to put in place for the country and he would have so much support from the religious right and conservatives in general, coupled that with not pissing off every moderate or member of the IC, the liberal media, and so on. I think he would get a lot more done with control of both the house and senate.

frostyjacks

StringerBell wrote: »

No, that's ^^^^ ludicrous

What does it matter who is in the military? Man or woman.

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

dudara

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

We should extend that definition to include all people of questionable mental health. Wonder what impact that would have on the armed forces?

Trigger

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

There is literally hundreds of thousand (possibly millions) of straight,lesbian,gay and bi people with mental health disorders, According to your logic, there would be no one allowed to join armed forces

BowSideChamp

dudara wrote: »

We should extend that definition to include all people of questionable mental health. Wonder what impact that would have on the armed forces?

80% of trans people are thinking about sucicide. How can you argue that they should be allowed to be have guns and to have a gun around others?

strandroad

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

Dressing up? You don't know what transgender means, do you.

dudara

BowSideChamp wrote: »

80% of trans people are thinking about sucicide. How can you argue that they should be allowed to be have guns and to have a gun around others?

And what about all the other members of the armed forces who think about suicide, whether due to depression, financial worries, PTSD etc?

What we need to discuss here is mental illness in general. Mental illness is not exclusive to any group of society and to single out one particular group is hugely wrong.

everlast75

BowSideChamp wrote: »

80% of trans people are thinking about sucicide. How can you argue that they should be allowed to be have guns and to have a gun around others?

Maybe they think about suicide as they aren't treated the same as everyone else, aren't allowed do the stuff other people are...
like join the army.... wait a minute!!!!

BowSideChamp

everlast75 wrote: »

Maybe they think about suicide as they aren't treated the same as everyone else, aren't allowed do the stuff other people are...
like join the army.... wait a minute!!!!

Imagine a transgender man is stationed in a FOB in Northern Afghanistan. Small base with the only supply by helicopter drop. Attacked on a daily basis by the Taliban. Their testosterone tablets havn't gotten delivered in months - food/ammo has been prioritised. The guy suffers a breakdown and is now a burden on his comrades.

SeamusFX

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

I agree 100% and that's why there can't be a totally unhinged lunatic as Commander and Chief!! The world can't have a nut job with his finger on The Button!

Peregrinus

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

dudara wrote: »

We should extend that definition to include all people of questionable mental health. Wonder what impact that would have on the armed forces?

I wonder what impact it would have on the presidency?

InTheTrees

dudara wrote: »

And what about all the other members of the armed forces who think about suicide, whether due to depression, financial worries, PTSD etc?

What we need to discuss here is mental illness in general. Mental illness is not exclusive to any group of society and to single out one particular group is hugely wrong.

Twenty Two US military veterans commit suicide every day. That's almost one every hour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide

aloyisious

I'm hoping that the democratic party in the house and senate take their lead from their republicans opposite numbers on this latest revelation from Don, don't be hasty and don't lead from the front, just be bipartisan with any condemnations from republicans on Don's tweeting about his decision.

I hope the Dems keep sober and let Don off on his charger. He's the best recruiting sergeant they have had this decade and century.

The Dems have to concentrate on watching what Mike Pence and Co are doing in the backrooms, cos he's the schemer..

Igotadose

Just got this in e-mail. Someone's got me on a Trump mailing list. Bah! 
Interesting propaganda, sending this junk out on the taxpayer's dime (probably, I refuse to follow the links to find out who is paying for this). Message is Hilary, can't trust the media, just trust me
----
Friend,

Politicians have spent too much time bickering and not enough time listening. Enough!

I want to hear from YOU.

I want to hear from the American heartland -- the REAL America that lives outside of the DC-media fantasy bubble.

Now that we’ve passed the six-month mark of our presidency, I want you to take the Listening to America Survey to tell me the true sentiments, concerns, and interests of REAL America. 

The mainstream media and Hollywood love to tell you “how America is feeling.” But they know nothing. They live in a world where you get to keep your job even if you fail to get anything done.

It’s time to tune them out. It’s time to shut off the noise and just LISTEN.

Just like on the campaign, I always like to go directly to the people. I asked our supporters to help prepare for our three big debates against Hillary. I asked what issues we should address. I asked for help creating our platform.

So please take this moment to turn off the very loud noise of Washington and take the Listening to America Survey. 

Thank you,
---

frag420

frostyjacks wrote: »

It was ludicrous allowing them to serve in the military in the first place. Common sense is making a come back.

Ah Frosty, where have you been hiding out? Havnt seen you in the other forums in ages, miss you telling us how evil women are for wanting abortions!

Question for you that I ask all people of your ill and ignorance...

Say your child is very sick, on deaths door(think very recent news in the UK) and you get a call from a doctor in America or somewhere, they have a treatment that is proven will save your child and that this doctor is the only one that has the ability to perform the procedure!?

Just so happens this doctor used to be Steve but is now called Eve...they are transgender( that's changing sex, not playing dress up)!?

Would you let them perform the procedure to save your childs life or does your blind ignorance get in the way and your child dies? It's just a hypothetical but would love a reply...

Christy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

It would be hilarious if Trump put forward this argument. Imagine the gun lobby's response!

Seriously though do you disagree with his reasoning? Trump had very different reasons (saving a few quid on the basis of screw minorities and let's overspend on the shiny stuff).

Second of all this won't stop transgender people from being in the military. It will merely stop them from being open about it leading to more people with mental health issues (as more of them will hsve mental health issues when forced to hide who they are) having guns. Good job, slightly counterproductive.

As has been pointed out. If you are going to send people into battle you are going to end up with an overlap of mental health issues and people with guns. I can't imagine the low numbers of transgender people skew the numbers that far given the issues already there.

VinLieger

frostyjacks wrote: »

Realistically, you can't have people of questionable mental health around guns and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

Except it had nothing to do with any of that and was a snap decision by trump to get movement on his precious wall

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

He actually pre-empted a military review of the policy whose results aren't due for several more months so there's zero basis in fact for any of your above claims because those questions haven't actually been answered yet.

Leroy42

The fact they have no plan in place now they they have announced the policy.

"What are you going to do with current serving members, particularly those in foreign deployment?"

"Oh, well, we need to discuss how to actually do this and what effects it will have."

So they announce a policy based on little actual data and have no actual plan of what they are going to do about it?

Its shambolic. It is no way to run a government. Is the policy in effect from now, from later? What is the planned implementation date?

What is the plan for any current serving members of the military? Should this also affect reserves? What about police and security? I assume the same arguments can be made for them?

What about ex-military. Will they continue to receive the health benefits if they announce they are transgender?

Those, and a large amount of other questions, they didn't even bother to hide that they hadn't even considered them. Huckerbee could only say that the policy was as it was.

Whatever side of the discussion you happen to sit, how can you fall in behind an administration that is so utterly unable to do the job it was elected to do?

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fact they have no plan in place now they they have announced the policy.

"What are you going to do with current serving members, particularly those in foreign deployment?"

"Oh, well, we need to discuss how to actually do this and what effects it will have."

So they announce a policy based on little actual data and have no actual plan of what they are going to do about it?

Its shambolic. It is no way to run a government. Is the policy in effect from now, from later? What is the planned implementation date?

What is the plan for any current serving members of the military? Should this also affect reserves? What about police and security? I assume the same arguments can be made for them?

What about ex-military. Will they continue to receive the health benefits if they announce they are transgender?

Those, and a large amount of other questions, they didn't even bother to hide that they hadn't even considered them. Huckerbee could only say that the policy was as it was.

Whatever side of the discussion you happen to sit, how can you fall in behind an administration that is so utterly unable to do the job it was elected to do?

Hardly surprising considering the pentagon wasn't even informed of the new policy decision and at one point during the tweet storm actually thought Trump was about to delcare war on North Korea

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-transgender-pentagon-fear-north-korea-declare-war-a7862091.html

The first people to hear about new policy is anyone watching his twitter, why bother telling and consulting the people who you know are actually gonna need to figure out the details and enact it?

Akrasia

VinLieger wrote: »

Hardly surprising considering the pentagon wasn't even informed of the new policy decision and at one point during the tweet storm actually thought Trump was about to delcare war on North Korea

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-transgender-pentagon-fear-north-korea-declare-war-a7862091.html

The first people to hear about new policy is anyone watching his twitter, why bother telling and consulting the people who you know are actually gonna need to figure out the details and enact it?

If the Pentagon thought there might be an immanent attack, imagine what was going through the mind of Kim Jong Un.

I said this months ago, there is a very real risk that Trump could start a war by accident because of his mindless twittering

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

The first people to hear about new policy is anyone watching his twitter, why bother telling and consulting the people who you know are actually gonna need to figure out the details and enact it?

Just on that point, Scaramucci was on Tapper (or one of those shows) the other day and was asked why Trump, apparently a great people person, was attacking Sessions through twitter and not doing it directly.

His answer was that presumably Sessions was one of the 100m+ that are connected to Trump on social media so in a way he was telling him directly, just telling lots of others at the same time!

LeinsterDub

BowSideChamp wrote: »

80% of trans people are thinking about sucicide. How can you argue that they should be allowed to be have guns and to have a gun around others?

Suggesting gun control as a reason even the GOP wouldn't run with this line of reasoning

robinph

Akrasia wrote: »

If the Pentagon thought there might be an immanent attack, imagine what was going through the mind of Kim Jong Un.

I said this months ago, there is a very real risk that Trump could start a war by accident because of his mindless twittering

Wonder if they were trying to figure out if they needed to get ready carry out a coup in those nine minutes in order to remove the idiot in chief. What if the next tweet had been "... North Korea..." and then another nine minute pause. Do they go in and bomb Twitters servers in order to stop anything more being said without letting the military know first?

LeinsterDub

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Imagine a transgender man is stationed in a FOB in Northern Afghanistan. Small base with the only supply by helicopter drop. Attacked on a daily basis by the Taliban. Their testosterone tablets havn't gotten delivered in months - food/ammo has been prioritised. The guy suffers a breakdown and is now a burden on his comrades.

And the general with the blood pressure issue becomes a "burden" and the guy diabetes are all a "burden" . Eventually the lad running the supply line gets court marshalled for sheer incompetence as we are talking about a few grams of medicine that would make no affect on a supply run.

Leroy42

I still don't understand why the delay in charging Trump Jr is. It's clearly there in black and white.

Surely he should be getting more than a simple request to give evidence?

The same with Flynn. It is allowing what they did to appear normal, accepted, to be not that serious.

Why is Flynn etc not in jail? I know the argument about tying everything together, but in all honesty they really don't appear to be too put out by what is going on.

Leroy42

Originally Posted by BowSideChamp View Post
Imagine a transgender man is stationed in a FOB in Northern Afghanistan. Small base with the only supply by helicopter drop. Attacked on a daily basis by the Taliban. Their testosterone tablets havn't gotten delivered in months - food/ammo has been prioritised. The guy suffers a breakdown and is now a burden on his comrades.

And what about if one of the soldiers gets injured in an attack? Should they simply abandon them as they are a burden?

Snickers Man

Wow!! In this report about Trump's transgender ban in the army is the snippet that the US military spends $84 million on "erectile dysfunction medicines" for its personnel!!

Can't wait for Clint Eastwood to make a movie about that. Featuring a sort of anti-Gunny Highway as the lead character.

Lock and load!!!

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

I still don't understand why the delay in charging Trump Jr is. It's clearly there in black and white.

Surely he should be getting more than a simple request to give evidence?

The same with Flynn. It is allowing what they did to appear normal, accepted, to be not that serious.

Why is Flynn etc not in jail? I know the argument about tying everything together, but in all honesty they really don't appear to be too put out by what is going on.

I wonder the same thing. Perhaps it's because once they move, there could be chaos unless the right groundwork is done? There is a whole house of cards which could collapse, and I guess they want to have their ducks in a row to be sure there is an orderly and controlled sequence of events, especially if they are going after POTUS himself. If other senior people are implicated , the VP and Speaker for example, then legal and constitutional issues are significant.

I wouldn't want to be the one that jumped the gun and messed it all up.

Alternatively they are waiting for the GOP to start turning against Trump. I think that's starting with the way he is treating Sessions. It may be that the FBI are waiting util they feel they will get GOP support before making their big move.

/idle guesswork

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

I wonder the same thing. Perhaps it's because once they move, there could be chaos unless the right groundwork is done? There is a whole house of cards which could collapse, and I guess they want to have their ducks in a row to be sure there is an orderly and controlled sequence of events, especially if they are going after POTUS himself. If other senior people are implicated , the VP and Speaker for example, then legal and constitutional issues are significant.

I wouldn't want to be the one that jumped the gun and messed it all up.

Alternatively they are waiting for the GOP to start turning against Trump. I think that's starting with the way he is treating Sessions. It may be that the FBI are waiting util they feel they will get GOP support before making their big move.

/idle guesswork

Yeah, that is my thinking as well, but it does seem to diminish the seriousness of what Trump Jr did. What harm would there be in serving charges against both Flynn and Trump Jr.

If they are hoping to get to POTUS, then surely putting more pressure on the those around him will only aid in that.

In a democracy, it really doesn't get much more serious than attempted collusion with a foreign power. But it seems, despite Trump Jr admitting it, that he is being allowed to simply walk away from it.

There is no doubt that the crisis that the release of the details of that meeting created has largely passed. I'm not saying it has gone away, but Trump and the WH has been allowed to simply move on to Sessions, Transgender soldiers etc.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, that is my thinking as well, but it does seem to diminish the seriousness of what Trump Jr did. What harm would there be in serving charges against both Flynn and Trump Jr.

If they are hoping to get to POTUS, then surely putting more pressure on the those around him will only aid in that.

In a democracy, it really doesn't get much more serious than attempted collusion with a foreign power. But it seems, despite Trump Jr admitting it, that he is being allowed to simply walk away from it.

There is no doubt that the crisis that the release of the details of that meeting created has largely passed. I'm not saying it has gone away, but Trump and the WH has been allowed to simply move on to Sessions, Transgender soldiers etc.

I agree, I can only assume that if they move too soon on the small fry they will risk losing the bigger fish.

Sam Russell

swampgas wrote: »

I agree, I can only assume that if they move too soon on the small fry they will risk losing the bigger fish.

They could be waiting for the Senate and House to go on recess.

Water John

I'd say Mueller is only getting into full trawling mode ATM. Staff just hired and premises.
They trawl and analyse, then trawl again and build the case. Another 6 months at least, I'd think.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I know the argument about tying everything together, but in all honesty they really don't appear to be too put out by what is going on.

They have plenty on Flynn, Junior, Manafort and Kushner.

So now they let them sweat, lie, bluff etc. in public, lie to Senate and House committees and further incriminate themselves and others.

Then Mueller calls them in and questions them on the record about their various contradictory stories. Then he confronts them with the testimony the others have given.

Then he offers them a deal to reduce their jail time if they come clean.

Then he questions whoever they rat on. Keep repeating this until Trump himself is implicated.

Leroy42

But that is basing everything on Trump going down. There is always the possibility that either he wasn't involved or that the evidence that he was is not there.

In the meantime they have let the people they know have got serious questions to answer walk away. I would have expected at the very least that the FBI would have wanted a serious word with Trump Jr.

Kushner continues to have top level security clearance, despite the continued acknowledgment that at best he is very forgetful of his past meetings.

In saying that, I do understand that Mueller has a job to do and these things take time. He is not simply going to find an e-mail from Putin to Trump. However, that is pretty much what the NYT found on Trump Jr and yet nothing appears to being done about it. At what point is evidence sufficient to lay charges?

johnnyskeleton

Mod notes:

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Imagine a transgender man is stationed in a FOB in Northern Afghanistan. Small base with the only supply by helicopter drop. Attacked on a daily basis by the Taliban. Their testosterone tablets havn't gotten delivered in months - food/ammo has been prioritised. The guy suffers a breakdown and is now a burden on his comrades.

Please discuss the issues in a non-sensationalist way. Posing extreme hypotheticals like this is not constructive debate.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nobody's stopping them from dressing up; they just have to find another line of work that will indulge them.

Serious posts only.

david75 wrote: »

Wow. That some astounding ignorance on show there lads.

You're a credit to your parents.

No personal abuse.

frag420 wrote: »

Ah Frosty, where have you been hiding out? Havnt seen you in the other forums in ages, miss you telling us how evil women are for wanting abortions!

Question for you that I ask all people of your ill and ignorance...

This is trolling.

I've had to issue a fair few cards and delete a few posts that have been put up since last night. This is of course a serious issue so it requires that people treat it as such and remain civil.

Water John

Somebody else may have the legal sequence. Grand Jury formation to which evidence is put seems to pre the charges.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

In the meantime they have let the people they know have got serious questions to answer walk away.

They haven't walked anywhere, and they aren't going to. This is only getting started.

Calina

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis/amp

I found this fascinating on the transition process and risks linked with the department of Energy in the US. It is a long and sobering read.

They really are not detail people.

Calina

Calina wrote: »

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis/amp

I found this fascinating on the transition process and risks linked with the department of Energy in the US. It is a long and sobering read.

They really are not detail people.

Fascinating and slightly nerve-wracking.

20Cent

Trans healthcare costs the US military an estimated 8.4 million per year.
Trumps visits to Mar a Lago have cost 20 million so far into his presidency.

StringerBell

I think the investigation is moving pretty fast for one of its kind. Only 6 months in to it and they seem to have plenty already to work with and work off of, it was always going to be a slow process. Compare it to the Watergate investigation for an example of time scale

MadYaker

Watergate was a different era, a lot less computers and no internet would surely slow things down.

VinLieger

Well according to the Joint Chiefs theres going to be no modification to the transgender policy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1

PopePalpatine

VinLieger wrote: »

Well according to the Joint Chiefs theres going to be no modification to the transgender policy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1

Fundies and frog-worshippers alike screech out in fury.

Rjd2

Jared supposedly one of the moderates:pac:

https://twitter.com/aylajean/status/890478453971197952

StringerBell

MadYaker wrote: »

Watergate was a different era, a lot less computers and no internet would surely slow things down.

Of course, but the gathering of intel, questioning people etc still takes up man hours. I would say it is down to the social media age that things are moving so fast. It is still going to take considerable time to get to the root of the investigation and see who and what charges are going to be made.

Water John

Coffman, Grassley and Graham all GOP, pushing back at Trump.
Coffman laughing at the idea of Trump vetoing Russians sanctions.
Grassley saying he would not deal with a Sessions replacement until next year.
Graham saying he believes there had to be follow up contact between Trump Jnr and Russians.

Trump losing the GOP on lots of fronts. One suspects his treatment of Sessions has stoked the fire.

B0jangles

VinLieger wrote: »

Well according to the Joint Chiefs theres going to be no modification to the transgender policy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029?lo=ap_a1

Very interesting; both that they would say so so publically and so quickly after the original Trump tweet.

It suggests that they absolutely know just how weak Trump's authority really is; that they feel perfectly safe openly and very publically contradicting him is very telling.