Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Peregrinus

And electoral corruption is electoral corruption. You're not supposed to do these things at all, and if you do them it's a problem even if, in the event, you don't do them very effectifvely.

A democracy which wants to be taken seriously can't tolerate or excuse electoral corruption. It's as simple as that.

everlast75

Someone mentioned earlier on that the abnormal will become normal.

To that end, if Trump seeks to distract (via tweet) from any negative stories (e.g. Stormy) each time he does it, it will have to be more outrageous.. otherwise it won't have the desired effect. A firing via Twitter might not be enough.

That does not bode well...

aloyisious

Don Trump has to be the biggest sadistic sneaky schoolyard contemptible mindf^^^er in the world. Before heading off to Florida for another weekend break, he signed a new policy order for the US military to the effect that transgender people who HAVE HAD, or are likely to HAVE, transgender surgery, will NOT be allowed serve in the military. This comes a few days after another change in which his Admin said they would be allowed serve in the military....

dudara

This is the second or third time he has tried this, right? And the military has so far resisted him. Fair play to the military is all I’ll say.

When is this contemptible behaviour going to be called out for the discrimination that it is? But I suppose that for a president that failed to condemn Nazis and racists, being anti-trans is a mere drop in the ocean.

pitifulgod

2 Scoops wrote: »

One has to ask themselves how in the world do the Republicans have the the Presidency and both houses, and yet keep getting owned by the Democrats.

Because the president has behaved like a moron who can't take any criticism. He has used the office to insult those he doesn't like and has complimented white supremacists. He's also under investigation for collusion and has fired half of his staff. The list is pretty long for bad and short for good... He's made the US into an international laughing stock. That's why the Republicans aren't getting on particularly well.

Skedaddle

His attacks on trans military personnel, a very small and until recently extremely marginalised group of people, is just inexplicably nasty.

I mean what's the point? The US military doesn't have any issue with this. Why is he so fixated on it?

Trying to be more like his buddy Putin?

FrostyJack

Skedaddle wrote: »

His attacks on trans military personnel, a very small and until recently extremely marginalised group of people, is just inexplicably nasty.

I mean what's the point? The US military doesn't have any issue with this. Why is he so fixated on it?

Trying to be more like his buddy Putin?

Because he knows it will trigger the media without damaging his base. They don't care or support it. Putin doesn't actively appose gay rights, but if you happen to be gay then you are in trouble. He gets to say he supports them with a wink and a nod.

Water John

It's keeping in with the base, and Pence et al. Obviously totally irked that, his command is flouted.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

His attacks on trans military personnel, a very small and until recently extremely marginalised group of people, is just inexplicably nasty.

I mean what's the point? The US military doesn't have any issue with this. Why is he so fixated on it?

Trying to be more like his buddy Putin?

It plays to his angry white far right brigade and the evangelicals. The hypocrisy of an immoral and unethical narcissist leading the charge against trans people is amusing.

MadYaker

The spending items in the budget are a total stab in the back for his supporters. Funding for DACA and sanctuary cities, no wall, the cloud act etc. The transgender ban is a pathetic attempt by him to appease the few rotten people who still support him.

Christy42

MadYaker wrote: »

The spending items in the budget are a total stab in the back for his supporters. Funding for DACA and sanctuary cities, no wall, the cloud act etc. The transgender ban is a pathetic attempt by him to appease the few rotten people who still support him.

It is more than a few. Saying it is only few makes it seem like there is not enough to do serious damage or win more elections.

Leroy42

The guy just signed off a bill, that he admits that he didn't read, that puts military spending at +$700bn per annum.

Their spending is more than the next 5 countries combined. And yet he thinks a a few million on Trans-gender cases is what is at the root of why America cannot win a war.

Why is he not asking the likes of Mattis how, given the massive budgets they have enjoyed, they have continued to fail in protecting the country. Why, for example, were they totally by-passed during the 9/11 attacks. Why have they not been able to win in Afghanistan etc.

No, it must be the fault of a tiny transgender population!

Manic Moran

Skedaddle wrote: »

I mean what's the point? The US military doesn't have any issue with this. Why is he so fixated on it?

This is incorrect. The US military was never on board with it, or the complete gender integration. They had a direct instruction from above, saluted, and complied with the order, whether they agreed with it or not: And they were not shy about saying they weren't in full agreement.

The Pentagon's assessment was completed about a month ago. Full 42 page document on this link. https://news.usni.org/2018/03/23/pentagon-report-recommendations-transgender-troops-serving-military. At first glance, the new Trump announcement follows the recommendation of the Pentagon.

Based on the work of the Panel and the Department’s best military judgment, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require, or have already undertaken, a course of treatment to change their gender. Furthermore, the Department also finds that exempting such persons from well-established mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards, which apply to all Service members, including transgender Service members without gender dysphoria, could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.

I'll have a gander through the whole thing, but at least two of the arguments (deployability and cost efficiency) are being applied to all soldiers currently in service regardless of identity or orientation: there's a bit of a cull going on in the military right now. Some argue that the non-deployability bit is being taken to extremes with good personnel with a good history being booted.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why have they not been able to win in Afghanistan etc.
No, it must be the fault of a tiny transgender population!

What they should really do is form a special military unit consisting of transgenderists, women, the disabled, the marginalised etc.. and in the spirit of equal opportunity send them out to fight the Taliban.

Then when they are all dead, send out a marine corps unit comprised of extremely fit and aggressive red blooded young males, to see off the Taliban and retrieve the bodies of their colleagues.

That should make things a bit plainer. Lethality is what counts in a combat situation; its the ultimate "survival of the fittest" scenario, with no room whatsoever for political correctness.

everlast75

recedite wrote: »

What they should really do is form a special military unit consisting of transgenderists, women, the disabled, the marginalised etc.. and in the spirit of equal opportunity send them out to fight the Taliban.

Then when they are all dead, send out a marine corps unit comprised of extremely fit and aggressive red blooded young males, to see off the Taliban and retrieve the bodies of their colleagues.

That should make things a bit plainer. Lethality is what counts in a combat situation; its the ultimate "survival of the fittest" scenario, with no room whatsoever for political correctness.

Says the voice of military experience, tapping away from behind his keyboard...

Beechwoodspark

I think he does stuff like this to try deflect from the obvious huge problems his administration has

AbusesToilets

everlast75 wrote: »

Says the voice of military experience, tapping away from behind his keyboard...

Do you disagree, have a counterpoint?

everlast75

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you disagree, have a counterpoint?

Of course I do. But to be frank, I didn't think his/her post needed discussion.

Being transgender is not a disability.
Less able bodied people DO serve in the military.
Some people are left less able BECAUSE they served in the military.
There is more to being in the military than "boots on the ground"
Being young and redblooded and male doesn't mean you will have any luck against the Taliban.

Should I go on?

Water John

Simply, his post is disgusting. But, I wouldn't be wasting my time, reporting him.
I'll just store it in my memory bank as to the type of individual, he/she is.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Simply, his post is disgusting. But, I wouldn't be wasting my time, reporting him.
I'll just store it in my memory bank as to the type of individual, he/she is.

I think a lot of people forget that you can search most if not all the posts you make here. It gives you a good idea of who your dealing with in terms of opinion.

Having gay/transgender and all other types of people serving hasn't hurt the US military. It could be argued that their over reliance on technology along with poor military and political choices has also affected their effectiveness.

Water John

I actually don't search a person's posting history. I just debate what is in front of me and how the poster has posted previously, on the subject. In this case, the whole concept, whether in jest or otherwise, is highly objectionable.
If he/she had the guts to say it, outside of anonimnity, they would be subject to possible prosecution. It amounts to, hate speech.

Manic Moran

So after reading the Pentagon’s submission, they make some fairly reasonable points to justify their position. First up, it does not actually prohibit transgenders, it does prohibit those with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria and transgender are not the same thing. The military counts about 9,000 personnel who identify as transgender, but only 1,000 with gender dysphoria. The former may continue to enlist as their biological gender. The American Psychiatric Association does not count transgenderism as a condition, as merely being transgender does not result in coping issues without treatment, unlike gender dysphoria.

I was unaware as to how many exceptions the Carter policy enabled. For example, I was unaware that any surgery to the chest or genital area for any reason on any person was an automatic disqualifier to military admission, the Carter policy overruled that. Similarly, the military required 36months’ stability without treatment on any mental health condition prior to accession, the new policy reduced it to 18months for gender dysphoria, after treatment was complete.

Then it cites figures for “once they are in.” Going over the figures for the almost 1,000 servicemen/women currently in the system with gender dysphoria, (as opposed to 9,000 transgenders) they are eight times more likely to attempt suicide, and see mental health professionals 28 times more than the typical serviceman. A full course of gender reassignment could render the serviceman non-deplorable for up to two and a half years, a sizable chunk of a three year enlistment. In a military which is currently culling non-deployables to reduce the strain on those who are left, it does seem to be asking for more trouble than necessary. There are a number of other liabilities and increased risks mentioned.

This is before the issues relating to unit cohesion which the report also goes into.

Overall, what the Pentagon recommended was applying the same standards to transgenders as to everyone else. If you have a condition, like any other condition, be stable for three years. If you have had surgery, same standards as everyone else. If you are transgender, and by the APA definition that means that you can function normally even while being “biologically incorrect” (or whatever the term is), then you may enlist.

Ludo

Manic Moran wrote: »

So after reading the Pentagon’s submission, they make some fairly reasonable points to justify their position. First up, it does not actually prohibit transgenders, it does prohibit those with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria.... SNIP....

In fairness that is all pretty reasonable to me. IF that is what is going on then why is that not being said rather than saying:

the White House said that transgender individuals are “disqualified from military service except under limited circumstances.”

Whoever is in charge of White House communications should be fired....oh....

Manic Moran

Ludo wrote: »

In fairness that is all pretty reasonable to me. IF that is what is going on then why is that not being said rather than saying:

A reasonable question, and I can’t find the text of what Trump actually signed. However, https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/transgender-white-house/index.html indicates that the White House is, indeed, using the term “Gender Dysphoria” in its statements and policy.

I suspect it is simply a matter of the common usage of the word “transgender” to generally mean “those who are transitioning or need to transition”, much like “civilian” is being used these days to mean “private citizen” instead of the technically correct “not military”. Since when did politicians or newspapers care about correct nomenclature?

The issue now seems to be that the military will not treat transgenders as their preferred gender. There are certainly arguments to be made about how this can be considered unfair (note how this issue is being handled in civilian world), but the argument about what is good for the military is just as strong. We do not enjoy the same Constitutional protections in the military because of the nature of the organization.

Thepoet85

Has anyone an idea of what Irish time the 60 minutes interview is on, and where to see it?

everlast75

Thepoet85 wrote: »

Has anyone an idea of what Irish time the 60 minutes interview is on, and where to see it?

I think its 8pm local time, and they are 5 hours behind.

There is an Anderson Cooper podcast so if you can wait, you can listen to it tomorrow morning probably

Thepoet85

everlast75 wrote:

There is an Anderson Cooper podcast so if you can wait, you can listen to it tomorrow morning probably

Perfect thank you

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

I think its 8pm local time, and they are 5 hours behind.

There is an Anderson Cooper podcast so if you can wait, you can listen to it tomorrow morning probably

There is also a 60 minutes podcast and I think you can watch back 60 minutes on the cbs website and it's not geo blocked(or at least it wasn't) to just the USA.

PropJoe10

Has the Spoofer In Chief even mentioned the gun law protests yesterday? Nah?

everlast75

Nope. He's back to tweeting about the military, Dems abandoning DACA and that ****ing wall.

I wonder what he will tweet about when it's Stormy time later...