Yes and no. It’s conceivable that Trump just pulled this out of his ass (or, as noted in the GD thread, it was to help get a bill thru Congress), but the policy was supposed to be reviewed at some point, so “the generals” should have been mulling it over and coming to some conclusions, even if they hadn’t yet communicated anything to Trump.
That would be an excellent idea. Too bad the Orange Asshole doesn’t think that way.
Even a Senator from Alabama disagrees with Trump on this. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect Trump was sacrificing his political capital to make right-wing extremists appear moderate.
Oh, great, you’re a flip-flopper! Back on page one, you were defending the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons. I’m glad that my insults have rattled something loose in your brain to make you see that we should NOT kick good troops out for stupid reasons.
Bold move, sir. I salute your courage to admit your error, and your arrogance to claim you were right all along despite your changes in opinions!
Give that man a prize. It’s a distraction. Bozo the Prez is looking for ways to create even more chaos, because he wants to distract everyone from RUSSIA. He is petty, vindictive, and vicious and doesn’t give a fuck who he hurts. It’s all about getting out of the “Russia thing”. Fucking traitor bastard that he is.
Was I? Please link to the post on page one where I defended the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons. In fact, you can use this whole thread to try to show where I am defending the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons. If you can’t, not only are you a moron, but you are a liar too.
I agree with your statement. I am assuming there are plenty of recruits of equal military value to those lost due to this policy. If my assumption is incorrect because of some logical flaw I am ignoring, then I can easily change my position. I don’t see what the problem is in terms of readiness or effectiveness or what have you.
This “affecting effectiveness” argument doesn’t make the policy a correct one, and the policy can be effectively criticized by emphasizing a number of practical, ethical and moral arguments, but this effectiveness angle isn’t one of them.
Anyway, I can’t say more about this because the goal of finding “the correct way to frame opposition to this disgusting fucking policy” isn’t something my heart is too much into.
It may be a distraction, but it doesn’t really work.
He thinks that just because he can be distracted by a shiny object for hours at a time, that he can distract the entire american populace with his inanity. And he is not entirely wrong when it comes to some few people, mostly his supporters, who get caught up in his “message”, and a decent chunk of the left as well get sidetracked while fighting down the nausea that his latest revelation induces, but the majority of americans, including the media, are perfectly capable of dealing with many issues in any particular day. Most americans probably deal with a few dozen issues of much greater import, impact, and difficulty every day at their jobs or with their families. Trump’s glurge is not something that really keeps them from multitasking on all those issues, so have no reason to prevent them from considering the stupidity of the latest tweet while also dealing with the meat of the issue, that the administration is incompetent and corrupt, and the only thing that is in question is which is greater.
And a stupid Bozo, too. Because he can distract the public all he wants. The only effective target for his distraction would be Bob Mueller, and Trump will have no success in distracting him. Trump may actually be so thoroughly skullfucked as to believe that if the public isn’t interested in the investigation, that the investigation goes away.
My main concern with this is the cost/benefit issue.
I work in the office within DoD that also has been working on the policy, training and other HR issues associated with this. This is the same office that worked the women in the military and gays in the military issue. And the cost/benefit issue is the one that is discussed time and time again on this.
Women in the military, Women make up 51 percent of the US. Not targeting 51 percent no longer made sense and the cost/benefit was there. Off the military went.
Gays in the military. Gays make up 4% of the US. Not a huge amount of people. The cost/benefit of having gays in the military isn’t really there. The Service Chiefs are concerned. The amount of training, annual training, policies, standards and discipline associated with this will be as significant as with women, but the country increasing wanted it will be done so off we went.
Transgender in the military. Transgenders in the US make up 0.3% of the population. A very small portion of the nation. Additionally, studies show that they have a lower propensity than the population at larger to join the military. Within DoD and with the Service Chiefs, the cost/benefit of having transgender isn’t really there. The amount of training, policies, standards etc. associated with this is on par with women in the military and gays, for a tiny fraction of the population base.
The amount of time that has been spent on this issue is viewed by many of the people that have to implement it to be disproportional to any readiness that will be gained. And readiness is the name of the game for the military.
We can debate the actual statistical impact of the decision to bar transgendered service people and we can further debate the impact on logistics – there are probably no clear answers to those questions, at least not now.
What I would say, though, is that it sends the wrong message to the military generally. Dating back to Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy there had been a trend toward inclusion. There may not be many transgendered personnel but there are probably a lot more people who are gay – are they next?
I actually am sympathetic to the argument that the military is not a laboratory for social experimentation, but like Bricker, I need to see evidence that inclusion and tolerance of transgendered people is detrimental to the service. There’s nothing to indicate that it is.
Do you think that there is a possibility that they don’t join because they were not allowed to?
I saw a Facebook post from Duckworth earlier, but can’t find it now. Here’s the gist:
how many people must you take the rights away from before it becomes a problem?
Everyone seems to think it ‘costs so much’ just to have them in (disregard transition surgery for a moment) before they begin to realize they have been effectively serving in the military with zero cost or changes. Similarly for ‘gays’ in the military - they have been there since the beginning and it made absolutely no difference - but suddenly by allowing them to be ‘open’ about it - it costs something and might break moral, etc???
What a load of absolute crap.
Una has mentioned in other threads that she’s seen higher numbers (up to double) for former military transgender women; the general consensus was they joined the military as one last attempt to “make a man out of themselves,” served their time, said “welp, that didn’t work…” and transitioned.
My bet is that Trump had decided not to pay for the reassignment surgeries and, when Bannon heard that, he asked Orangeman, “Hey, do you really wanna fuck with the libtards?”
Can the President even order such a sweeping ban on his own? I would think Congress would have to be involved and it seems almost none of them were for a sweeping ban on serving
This quote just about jumped off the page of the Politico article:
[QUOTE=Rep. Trent Franks]
“It’s not so much the transgender surgery issue as much as we continue to let the defense bill be the mule for all of these social experiments that the left wants to try to hoist on government,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a conservative supporter of the Hartzler proposal, said last week.
He added: “It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that.”
[/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine, of course.
DoD is under the Executive Dept., not Congress. The courts could get involved if someone was interested in filing for a restraining order. (Good luck with that with the military.)
Or Congress could threaten funding after the fact…even more luck necessary.
I believe the words you are looking for are “allowed to serve in all positions in the military” for women, who have in fact been serving in the US military since 1775, and “allowed to serve openly” for gays in the US military, who have in fact been serving in the US military since its inception. You could also add “openly in combat positions” for women as well; several hundred women enlisted during the US Civil War by concealing the fact that they were women.
Yes, the only reason liberals could possibly have any sort of opinion on women, homosexuals, transgendered, or the military in general is because they hate America, want to weaken our military and let our enemies win. I’m sure all the liberals you have served with were in fact moles seeking to destroy the military from within.:rolleyes: