Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

But he's incapable of doing any of those things, so he might as well pass his time at rallies, and leave the grown-ups to do what they can without interference.

Well, I am not sure whether it is him being incapable or not interested or what, but he certainly seems to not want to spend his time on those issues.

And its not the rallies per se that are the issue. All politicians are constantly looking to enhance their PR etc, Trump has decided that although he is POTUS, and therefore has direct and complete access to any and all media and can guarantee an audience wherever he goes simply because of the job he holds, and can to a very large extent lead the agenda, he seems intent on staying within the confines of the campaign.

He still fills his speeches with vague soundbites and saying what others should be doing. The type of language that people use when in opposition. He, and his supporters, seem to be happy to forget that he is POTUS, there really is nobody else to get things done.

Leroy42

one armed dwarf wrote: »

It's strange to me that the attendance at the rally is so low. If I could I'd think I'd go to one just to see the crazy first hand.

This rally was held very shortly after Charlottsville, and after his changing positions on it and final position of siding with the Neo-Nazis.

Many people that may have gone to "see the crazy first hand" or were simply sitting on the fence probably avoided it to avoid getting labelled a white supremacist etc.

So you go there just to check it out and next thing you know there is a picture of you standing beside a guy with a Nazi salute or "Fags are the Devils Children" T-shirt or whatever all over the internet and your employer suddenly has you in HR putting you on notice and all you sane thinking friends have deserted you.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst the lying about the crowd size is funny, it is not unexpected. The other issue is that Trump surely has better things to do than hold rallies.

He has hundreds of positions still to fill in the government, healthcare needs a complete do-over, he needs to finalise the tax plan, budget 2018 is due shortly, he should be working on getting a UN resolution on dealing with NK, NAFTA trade talks don't seem to be going well, he has to organise a trade deal with the UK, and then he will need to renegotiate a trade deal with the EU to insure he doesn't lose out on the bigger market. He has to bring back coal jobs. Make inner cities safe. Fix Flint drinking water.

He needs to finalise plans for the wall, infrastructure plan is still a mystery. And that is all apart from the normal everyday duties of POTUS in terms of middle East, Israel, Nato etc etc.

The budget, he's sorted that.... He say's he'll close down the Govt {the public service] to cut costs if the Senate & Congress don't do what he wants.

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

The budget, he's sorted that.... He say's he'll close down the Govt {the public service] to cut costs if the Senate & Congress don't do what he wants.

On that, he was asked what would happen to the federal funding required for Houston if the govt closed down and simply said he get it through before that. Totally missing the point that whilst he can get whatever he wants through but to actually get the money to those that need it requires federal work and if the government is closed down then there is nobody to dole out the money.

Quin_Dub

I saw it described in an article recently that Trump is very good at Campaigning but he has no ability or interest in the mundanity of Governing.

Campaigning allow it to be all about him - See the crowds cheering , gets to riff on a multitude of topics without people interrupting him with questions or expectations of decisions etc.

If he wasn't "campaigning" he'd literally have nothing to do and I suspect the outcomes of his boredom and frustration would not be a good thing.

relax carry on

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If he wasn't "campaigning" he'd literally have nothing to do and I suspect the outcomes of his boredom and frustration would not be a good thing.

What does this button do?

Akrasia

After Katrina, New Orleans needed tens of thousands of migrant workers to clean up the damage (the parts they bothered to clean up) and rebuild the city (the parts they bothered to rebuild)

They even suspended labour laws relating to employing immigrants and suspending minimum wages to facilitate contractors getting the labour they needed to do the work.

(many of those workers were never paid, but that's another topic)

Given that Trump's main platform is anti immigration, and that America doesn't need mexicans coming over the border taking American jobs. Who is going to clean up after Hurricane Harvey?

Initial estimates are that there will be at least 40 billion dollars worth of damage in Texas, and the event is still ongoing with catastrophic flooding expected to hit more cities and towns over the coming days.

Will Trump relax immigration laws to allow these workers in to do the horrible thankless tasks that need to be done to clean up after a storm of this magnitude?

How can he still press for funding to build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants out, while opening the gates at the border and begging for them to come in to rebuild Houston?

Akrasia

relax carry on wrote: »

What does this button do?

It's like my kids saying they're bored when they have dozens of books they haven't read, infinite lego creations not created yet, trees not yet climbed, pictures not yet drawn, toys not played with, imaginary friends also claiming to be bored..

Trump should never be bored. He should be so stressed out from all the things that need his attention constantly that he collapses into his bed at night exhausted and unable to lift his phone to send that 5am tweet attacking Snoop Dogg and his failing career.

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

After Katrina, New Orleans needed tens of thousands of migrant workers to clean up the damage (the parts they bothered to clean up) and rebuild the city (the parts they bothered to rebuild)

They even suspended labour laws relating to employing immigrants and suspending minimum wages to facilitate contractors getting the labour they needed to do the work.

(many of those workers were never paid, but that's another topic)

Given that Trump's main platform is anti immigration, and that America doesn't need mexicans coming over the border taking American jobs. Who is going to clean up after Hurricane Harvey?

Initial estimates are that there will be at least 40 billion dollars worth of damage in Texas, and the event is still ongoing with catastrophic flooding expected to hit more cities and towns over the coming days.

Will Trump relax immigration laws to allow these workers in to do the horrible thankless tasks that need to be done to clean up after a storm of this magnitude?

How can he still press for funding to build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants out, while opening the gates at the border and begging for them to come in to rebuild Houston?

But Trumps golf courses have already applied for waivers of the immigration policies to allow them to hire foreign workers to cover summer. I don't think Trump will think twice about relaxing the process.

On a further point, it is illegal immigration that they have a issue with. So those with visas are welcome (although they are of course tightening that area as well) so increasing the available numbers of visas is not technically against his stated position

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

And its not the rallies per se that are the issue.

The rallys are a symptom. Trump is terrible at the job and it makes him miserable and angry.

So he holds "campaign" rallys, even though there is no campaign, and the crowd cheers and he feels better.

I'm sure psychiatrists have a name for this kind of personality, but in layman's terms, he's as nutty as squirrel poo.

frag420

relax carry on wrote: »

What does this button do?

Would Oval Office Trapdoor be too much to wish for?

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The rallys are a symptom. Trump is terrible at the job and it makes him miserable and angry.

So he holds "campaign" rallys, even though there is no campaign, and the crowd cheers and he feels better.

I'm sure psychiatrists have a name for this kind of personality, but in layman's terms, he's as nutty as squirrel poo.

This is the crux of it.. He genuinely believed that being President would be just like being a CEO, only cooler and with an Army!

He appears to have been of the belief that if he said it , it would happen and that things like consensus and compromise were not things that he would ever have to contemplate.

The reality of National Government and the extremely partisan nature of US politics means that he literally can't do anything how he'd like to (by edict) and his frustration is growing daily.

The Hurricane in recent days is probably actually a bit a relief for him..
It's obviously a Major event with blanket TV News coverage so he has gotten to sit in front of the TV live-tweeting events as they happen and claim to have had influence of the actions of the Services on the ground helping out - Right up his street.

The big challenges are ahead - Will he try to use Hurricane relief to force through budget changes by claiming that anyone that opposes the budget is endangering Flood Victims by risking a government shut-down if they vote against??

Manic Moran

one armed dwarf wrote: »

It's strange to me that the attendance at the rally is so low. If I could I'd think I'd go to one just to see the crazy first hand.

I suspect there is a little shenanigans going on.
Here are some screen grabs from a CNN reporter, definitely showing a larger audience than the 'hundreds' shown in that clip above.

https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/900183589542739968

Local Arizona news reporter does a pan at about the same time (Just after Trump said the crowd sizes get no coverage):
http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/25/see-how-many-people-attended-trumps-phoenix-rally/104948324/

Phoenix city police and city spokesman also going closer to the 10,000+ mark (Maybe 15,000 if one counts protestors).
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/23/how-many-people-downtown-phoenix-donald-trump-rally-protests/594732001/

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

I suspect there is a little shenanigans going on.
Here are some screen grabs from a CNN reporter, definitely showing a larger audience than the 'hundreds' shown in that clip above.

https://twitter.com/megwagner/status/900183589542739968

Local Arizona news reporter does a pan at about the same time (Just after Trump said the crowd sizes get no coverage):
http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/25/see-how-many-people-attended-trumps-phoenix-rally/104948324/

Phoenix city police and city spokesman also going closer to the 10,000+ mark (Maybe 15,000 if one counts protestors).
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/23/how-many-people-downtown-phoenix-donald-trump-rally-protests/594732001/

Not that crowd sizes really matter much, but if there was one protester for every two attendees I am assuming we would have heard a good deal more about it, seen pictures of 5,000 of them, etc. Maybe I missed them but I certainly didn't hear anything about them. Added to that, the Twitter video shows the same congested areas the CNN video points out, and the first video linked to also shows large, empty spots. If the crowd was 10,000 (let alone 15,000) then they also managed to go well, well over the allocation of something like 7,250 despite having a large enough area dedicated to media and another large area completely empty.

Basically, if someone tries to tell me there were 120,000 people at Croker for the Mayo/Kerry game the other day, I'm not believing them. Especially if this person has a serious history of lying, perhaps literally even lying more than they tell the truth - in that case, I wouldn't even entertain the idea.

Panjandrums

This post has been deleted.

Water John

Well he's building a bridge to Crassley, offering support on ethanol. Crassley is important in the Senate investigation of Russia ties.

Looks like he's running around trying to plug the holes in the dyke.

Leroy42

Mattis has come out and put a hold on the transgender ban.

A judge has put a hold on the targeting of sanctuary cities.

He is trying to bribe a senator on an investigation (that didn't work too well on the Alaska Senator and this senator has immediately made it public thereby negating the point of it as now Trump has to do it to avoid looking like a bribe!).

He has gone all in on tax reform. Big speech last night. He says there are 61 days left in the calendar to get it done, me thinks he is basically going to park everything else and focus on this.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

He has gone all in on tax reform. Big speech last night. He says there are 61 days left in the calendar to get it done, me thinks he is basically going to park everything else and focus on this.

Trump has some sort of ADD, he can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. His briefings are so brief they are just bullet points. He won't read a page of text or even study a chart.

He will be tweeting irrelevant nonsense about what he sees on Fox news every one of those 61 calendar days.

aloyisious

This would probably make Don's day. There are two different versions of the story, WaPo-wise headlines. The 2nd mentions Tillerson not saying the offer would be accepted. US Sec of State thank's Mexico for its generous offer......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY04fjjoHWAhVHKsAKHRZnBpoQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Fnational-security%2Ftillerson-praises-mexicos-generosity-in-offering-harvey-aid%2F2017%2F08%2F30%2F54169634-8dbd-11e7-9c53-6a169beb0953_story.html&usg=AFQjCNEEfMCpRVH1Y3qQX6FWRpzRii3V9w

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Mattis has come out and put a hold on the transgender ban.

But this isn't true. Mattis is doing exactly what he was told to do by Trump.

The president’s August 25 ban memo allowed trans service members to stay in the military up to March 23, 2018, when the ban goes into effect. “No action may be taken against such individuals,” the administration memo reads, until Mattis and the Homeland Security secretary figure out how to address transgender people already serving in the military.

And Mattis has until February 21, 2018, to figure out how best to implement the plan. Mattis had previously signaled that he needed more time to complete the review of the effects transgender service members have on the military’s ability to fight wars.

On August 14, 19 days after the initial tweets, he told reporters that when the president’s order arrived at the Pentagon, he and others would “study it and come up with what the policy should be.”

I know that having headlines stating that Mattis is "defying" Trump sell more papers and grab more attention but they are blatantly untrue.

Leroy42

It was well played by Mexico (or is that just humanely played) because they were in a win-win. Offer the support and either Trump accepts it and by extension accepts that Mexico is not the enemy he portrays it as or reject it and Mexico come out looking great anyway without any of the actual effort or cost.

In terms of the hurricane and flooding, it shows just how poor a job that W Bush did with Katrina that Americans 4th largest city being flooded, thousands of people losing their homes etc is being sold as a great victory for Trump. Now clearly he is not to blame for this, but the rescues services are overrun whilst Trump have billions of $ of equipment available fro right across the country than should have been mobilised prior to the event to ensure that no one died.

And he seems to think that it is now all done and dusted, problem over, lets talk about tax reform and building the wall. What has he actually put in place to solve the crisis? What is the plan to clean up and get people back in their homes?

Why he he not heading the task force meetings to ensure that Houston be be 'rebuilt' ASAP? It really is a terrible leadership performance from him, and as alluded to above, is only being seen as positive compared to the disgrace that was W Bush

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

But this isn't true. Mattis is doing exactly what he was told to do by Trump.



I know that having headlines stating that Mattis is "defying" Trump sell more papers and grab more attention but they are blatantly untrue.

All true, but Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted, tweets which are classified as official.

So either he mispoke on his tweets or someone has made him delay the implementation. Either way it is not what he said he was going to do. Trump did not get what he wanted

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

It really is a terrible leadership performance from him

Twitter is overrun with people (or bots) saying Trump visited the scene to help, whereas President Obama played golf during Katrina.

Truth no longer matters to Trumps base, they are entirely insulated from reality.

ThisRegard

I doubt any mention that the republicans blocked additional aid for the victims of Katrina.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

All true, but Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted, tweets which are classified as official.

So either he mispoke on his tweets or someone has made him delay the implementation. Either way it is not what he said he was going to do. Trump did not get what he wanted

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....

....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

These are his tweets and nowhere does it say that the ban is immediate. There's no inference that this is to be immediate. Do you have a direct quote stating otherwise? At this moment it's going exactly the way it's supposed to and there's no "defying" or "freezes" going on contrary to MSM reports.

Water John

Mattis def taking a very diff line on N Korea.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

These are his tweets and nowhere does it say that the ban is immediate. There's no inference that this is to be immediate. Do you have a direct quote stating otherwise? At this moment it's going exactly the way it's supposed to and there's no "defying" or "freezes" going on contrary to MSM reports.

Where does it say it will be delayed? He is suggesting that transgender places a strain on the military and reduces their effectiveness. Why would you continue on with a policy that is actively destroying the military?

WH press briefings only stated that they would look at current active members in Afgan etc, again indicating that the ideal would be immediate.

Why sign an order to stop the intake when the info isn't even known yet. That is what Mattis is saying, contrary to Trumps position. He has already made his mind up yet his senior military person is saying it will take time to consider.

It has nothing to do with MSM, it has to do with a mixed message that Trump himself sent out.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

All true, but Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted, tweets which are classified as official.

So either he mispoke on his tweets or someone has made him delay the implementation. Either way it is not what he said he was going to do. Trump did not get what he wanted

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where does it say it will be delayed? He is suggesting that transgender places a strain on the military and reduces their effectiveness. Why would you continue on with a policy that is actively destroying the military?

WH press briefings only stated that they would look at current active members in Afgan etc, again indicating that the ideal would be immediate.

Why sign an order to stop the intake when the info isn't even known yet. That is what Mattis is saying, contrary to Trumps position. He has already made his mind up yet his senior military person is saying it will take time to consider.

It has nothing to do with MSM, it has to do with a mixed message that Trump himself sent out.

So he didn't actually Tweet what you claimed he did. You claimed that in a tweet (which is official according to yourself) that he said the ban should be immediate. Your statement was wrong regarding the content of those Tweets.

You take the WH briefing as another indication of an immediate ban but they only stated that they would look at active members in Afgan etc. Did they say they were looking at banning them with immediate effect ?

Mattis is not taking time to "consider " as you put it. It's not up for consideration. He does however have time to come up with a plan on how to implement the policy.

“The department will carry out the president's policy direction,” reads a statement from Mattis. “I will establish a panel of experts serving within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the president's direction.”

ThisRegard

Celticfire wrote: »

These are his tweets and nowhere does it say that the ban is immediate. There's no inference that this is to be immediate.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

This pretty much means that after the order was signed he wanted no transgender in the military.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was well played by Mexico (or is that just humanely played) because they were in a win-win. Offer the support and either Trump accepts it and by extension accepts that Mexico is not the enemy he portrays it as or reject it and Mexico come out looking great anyway without any of the actual effort or cost.

They offered and actively supported on the ground in earlier relief efforts in the USA with military personnel in New Orleans for example. As they said "It's what good neighbours do" so I'd say it's simply what they offer no matter the president.

PopePalpatine

It looks like the swamp is about to get 10 feet deeper. Again.

Celticfire

ThisRegard wrote: »

This pretty much means that after the order was signed he wanted no transgender in the military.

The president’s August 25 ban memo allowed trans service members to stay in the military up to March 23, 2018, when the ban goes into effect. “No action may be taken against such individuals,” the administration memo reads, until Mattis and the Homeland Security secretary figure out how to address transgender people already serving in the military.

And Mattis has until February 21, 2018, to figure out how best to implement the plan.

As per my original point, Mattis is not "defying" or "freezing" the ban as some MSM state. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing. Coming up with a plan how how to implement the policy.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

As per my original point, Mattis is not "defying" or "freezing" the ban as some MSM state. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing. Coming up with a plan how how to implement the policy.

But clearly Trump wanted to ban them straight away. And that feeling was never negated either by himself of the WH Press core.

Again, do you think that if Trump believes that are such a hindrance that he felt they should continue to operate and continue to be accepted into the military. Your take on his position seems to be that transgender are terrible for the military, but its ok to wait a while and see.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

That now seems to have changed to

will not accept at some undetermined date in the future.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

But clearly Trump wanted to ban them straight away. And that feeling was never negated either by himself of the WH Press core.

Again, do you think that if Trump believes that are such a hindrance that he felt they should continue to operate and continue to be accepted into the military. Your take on his position seems to be that transgender are terrible for the military, but its ok to wait a while and see.



That now seems to have changed to

You made a claim regarding his tweets, and when confronted with the fact that he didn't say what you said he did you looked for an alternate excuse to confirm your assertion. There was no wording in his tweet that the ban was to be immediate. That is a fact. If anyone is changing it's you, going from your original "Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted" to "why this" and" why that". Trump has no problem using the word immediate as was seen when he first tried to implement the travel ban. So I don't see why you still cling onto your belief that this ban was to be immediate when there's no actual evidence. Your beliefs are not evidence.

robinph

Its more that

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

Has now changed to
"I didn't consult with my Generals and military experts in the first place so please be advised that you should forget about this until I've managed to twist the meaning of the 'ban' enough so that I can save face but nothing actually changes because the Generals and military experts don't agree with me that anything need to be done."

Really Interested

Celticfire wrote: »

These are his tweets and nowhere does it say that the ban is immediate. There's no inference that this is to be immediate. Do you have a direct quote stating otherwise? At this moment it's going exactly the way it's supposed to and there's no "defying" or "freezes" going on contrary to MSM reports.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-and-secretary-homeland

The Memo

The Obama change was to take effect from July 2017

"his Administration dismantled the Departments' established framework by permitting transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, authorizing the use of the Departments' resources to fund sex-reassignment surgical procedures, and permitting accession of such individuals after July 1, 2017."

That was extended to 1st January, 2018 "The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security have since extended the deadline to alter the currently effective accession policy to January 1, 2018, while the Departments continue to study the issue."


What Trump orders,

"Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including Article II of the Constitution, I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above. The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted."

It would seem to me your understanding of the current situation and memo is incorrect.
What the memo does

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

You made a claim regarding his tweets, and when confronted with the fact that he didn't say what you said he did you looked for an alternate excuse to confirm your assertion. There was no wording in his tweet that the ban was to be immediate. That is a fact. If anyone is changing it's you, going from your original "Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted" to "why this" and" why that". Trump has no problem using the word immediate as was seen when he first tried to implement the travel ban. So I don't see why you still cling onto your belief that this ban was to be immediate when there's no actual evidence. Your beliefs are not evidence.

Because I am reading what he said. I never claimed he used the word immediate, I claimed that is what the tweet indicated.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

Will not accept or allow. Yeah are quite right that he didn't say immediate, but how else to read it? You are suggestion, based on nothing but your belief, that what he actually meant to say was that it may be done after a period of consultation and review. So why not say that.Since he tweeted it out one can only assume that what he said reflects his position.

He stated that he had already consulted with his generals. Now Mattis is saying that he needs time to review and think about how do actually do it.

Now even if we go with your assertion that he always meant it to be after a period of time, then surely Mattis had already started the review? So which is it? Do we only take part of the tweet as accurate and ignore the other part or what? At best what it shows is that Trump needs to be more circumspect when Tweeting. He clearly got ahead of himself and the admin on this issue. He has made a policy without knowing the effect that the current policy has, how his policy will effect the military, or how to even implement the policy.

Celticfire

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-and-secretary-homeland

The Memo

The Obama change was to take effect from July 2017

"his Administration dismantled the Departments' established framework by permitting transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, authorizing the use of the Departments' resources to fund sex-reassignment surgical procedures, and permitting accession of such individuals after July 1, 2017."

That was extended to 1st January, 2018 "The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security have since extended the deadline to alter the currently effective accession policy to January 1, 2018, while the Departments continue to study the issue."


What Trump orders,

"Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including Article II of the Constitution, I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above. The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted."

It would seem to me your understanding of the current situation and memo is incorrect.
What the memo does

The poster claimed in his post that Trump tweeted something that he didn't. Are you offering this as evidence that he did ?

My point was Mattis is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing. Not "delay" or "freeze" the implementation of the policy as MSM would try to claim

Quin_Dub

Think this article gives a good view of why the Transgender ban is no going to last..

Contrary to reports in the press, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis did not “freeze” or “put on hold” Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.
In fact, Mattis is doing exactly what Trump ordered—and it is the words of those very orders that will doom the anti-trans plan in court.

In a series of tweets on July 26, Trump announced that the military “will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity.” Then, on August 25, the White House issued a presidential memorandum implementing this new policy.
Sort of. In fact, if you read the memorandum (which few people have apparently done), it actually only changes two parts of current policy. First, it indefinitely suspends the “accession” (i.e. enlistment or drafting) of trans people, which was due to begin on July 1, pursuant to an Obama-era directive issued last year. (More on that in a moment.) Second, the memo prohibits the military and coastguard from paying for trans soldiers’ medical expenses.

In other words, Trump’s bite never matched his bark. The memo did not direct the military to dismiss active-duty trans personnel, as he had earlier promised.

Finally, the memo instructs Mattis to study the issue and provide recommendations—which is exactly what Mattis has said he will now do. The media flurry about Mattis disobeying Trump is simply not true.

The key piece of the memorandum is this..

if you read the fine print, you’ll see that—as with the travel ban—Trump has set his own legal mousetrap. Because the exact instructions are that the ban on trans enlistment is set to last “until such time as the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, provides a recommendation to the contrary that I find convincing.”

So - The legal basis for the ban is tied to "convincing" Trump of it's value or otherwise.. Not Statistics , not evidence , just his opinion

It will get challenged in the courts , there are already a few in flight and the courts will as they have done before look at Trumps statements on Twitter etc. and use them against him and a statement like until such time as the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, provides a recommendation to the contrary that I find convincing.” isn't really going to stand up as legal or even constitutional.

Really Interested

Celticfire wrote: »

The poster claimed in his post that Trump tweeted something that he didn't. Are you offering this as evidence that he did ?

My point was Mattis is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing. Not "delay" or "freeze" the implementation of the policy as MSM would try to claim

Where have i talked about the tweet, I have simply posted the memo and my belief that you misunderstood the memo and its effect as do most people posting on the issue.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because I am reading what he said. I never claimed he used the word immediate, I claimed that is what the tweet indicated.

All true, but Trump said that the ban should be immediate when he first tweeted, tweets which are classified as official.

Will not accept or allow. Yeah are quite right that he didn't say immediate, but how else to read it? You are suggestion, based on nothing but your belief, that what he actually meant to say was that it may be done after a period of consultation and review. So why not say that.Since he tweeted it out one can only assume that what he said reflects his position.

So like I said and you've now admitted he didn't say immediate. It's like pulling teeth trying to get you to admit that it's your interpretation of what he said and not what he actually said.Why would you not think that there would be consultation and reviews? From my very limited knowledge of military operations I do know that they love their procedures and manuals. Why would this be any different?

He stated that he had already consulted with his generals. Now Mattis is saying that he needs time to review and think about how do actually do it.

Now even if we go with your assertion that he always meant it to be after a period of time, then surely Mattis had already started the review? So which is it? Do we only take part of the tweet as accurate and ignore the other part or what? At best what it shows is that Trump needs to be more circumspect when Tweeting. He clearly got ahead of himself and the admin on this issue. He has made a policy without knowing the effect that the current policy has, how his policy will effect the military, or how to even implement the policy.

Do you normally go ahead and start working on a project before management actually give instruction to do so? I think you're just being facetious now and pretending that there's no complexity to implementing a policy such as this.

Celticfire

Really Interested wrote: »

Where have i talked about the tweet, I have simply posted the memo and my belief that you misunderstood the memo and its effect as do most people posting on the issue.

You quoted me replying to Leroy42 about claims he made regarding tweets made on July 26. Enlighten me as to how this memo dated August 25 negates the point I was making.

Really Interested

Celticfire wrote: »

You quoted me replying to Leroy42 about claims he made regarding tweets made on July 26. Enlighten me as to how this memo dated August 25 negates the point I was making.

Did I mention the tweet? I posted the memo!

You said earlier

"So he didn't actually Tweet what you claimed he did. You claimed that in a tweet (which is official according to yourself) that he said the ban should be immediate. Your statement was wrong regarding the content of those Tweets.

You take the WH briefing as another indication of an immediate ban but they only stated that they would look at active members in Afgan etc. Did they say they were looking at banning them with immediate effect ?

Mattis is not taking time to "consider " as you put it. It's not up for consideration. He does however have time to come up with a plan on how to implement the policy."

The fact is the ban that Obama decided to do away with was still in effect till 1st July 2017 extended to the 1st January 2018. The ban never stopped the memo reverts to the pre 2016 decision which in any effect the ban has stayed in effect. The Memo only allows the Sec of Defence to convince POTUS that the Ban which was and is in effect should not stay in effect.

Celticfire

Really Interested wrote: »

Did I mention the tweet? I posted the memo!

Usually when you quote someone you are addressing a point that they have made. I was discussing the Tweets and what was insinuated in them . If the implementation of the policy was immediate then the Transgender troops currently in the military would be gone already.

Really Interested

Celticfire wrote: »

Usually when you quote someone you are addressing a point that they have made. As I was discussing the Tweets and you quoted same I assumed your post had something relevant to what I was actually talking about.

It did and I was in the middle of editing my post which sets out what I was addressing.

robinph

Celticfire wrote: »

Why would you not think that there would be consultation and reviews?

Trumps initial tweet said that had already happened though?

Celticfire

robinph wrote: »

Trumps initial tweet said that had already happened though?

You do know the difference between consulting and implementing?

robinph

Celticfire wrote: »

You do know the difference between consulting and implementing?

Yup, don't think Trump does though.

If Trump had said "We're putting a hold on the policy change that was due to come in until after further review" then that would match with the facts of what is actually now happening.

He didn't though. He made a declaration about a consultation that he claimed had already happened and that the result of that consultation was that he was banning trans people from the military. There is no ambiguity about what the result of the consultation was or that it may or may not have already happened. Yes, there is room for interpreting when he was trying to suggest the change would happen, but there is nothing in his initial tweet to say that it is only a possible policy change that is being looked into.

Celticfire

robinph wrote: »

Yup, don't think Trump does though.

If Trump had said "We're putting a hold on the policy change that was due to come in until after further review" then that would match with the facts of what is actually now happening.

Trump tweeted 3 short tweets. Why do you think that every eventuality and scenario should be covered in them? The WH does briefing and that's where questions get answered.

He didn't though. He made a declaration about a consultation that he claimed had already happened and that the result of that consultation was that he was banning trans people from the military. There is no ambiguity about what the result of the consultation was or that it may or may not have already happened. Yes, there is room for interpreting when he was trying to suggest the change would happen, but there is nothing in his initial tweet to say that it is only a possible policy change that is being looked into.

Do you have any idea how much work will go into imposing this policy or any policy for that matter? There will be many more consultations, reviews and meetings before final policy will be published. The memo published yesterday is the official start to implementing this policy.

This is my last post on the Tweets as I've made my point that the Tweets did not say that was insinuated.

Also my other point still stands that contrary to MSM reports of "delays" and "freezes" Mattis is doing the job he is tasked to do.

Water John

The WH doesn't do briefing, where you get answers. SHS says she'll find out and get back on that, except she never does.