Please note, Duckworth lost her legs for this country. Trump hid like a little bitch, claiming he had a non-existent bone spur in his foot (but can’t even remember which foot).
I don’t even know anymore where to begin to look to find an answer to this question: Can the president legally ban transgenders, or anyone else for that matter, from serving and also have those currently serving separated? If so, I fully expect another type of Muslim ban PDQ.
AFAIK, both Obama and Clinton unilaterally decided their respective change of policy on gender/sexuality inclusion. It would be odd if Trump couldn’t similarly reverse either. But you expectation of a religious based ban does not seem remotely legal, constitutionally.
Gay and trans people are already serving and always have. The only question is do we want to welcome them and their skills or shut them out and make them live lies if they want to serve. What’s the benefit of trying to shut them out? Based on the studies linked so far, I don’t buy that there’s actually any significant costs greater than the benefits to allowing them to serve openly.
I wasn’t born yesterday. I know how this game works. I post the link to your post and everyone can read your words and the plain meaning of them. But you’re going to say that the plain reading is wrong and that everyone is an idiot for thinking that you meant what you wrote.
When someone says, “But we have been doing X for a long time!” the only rational way to read it is as a defense of X. That is what you wrote about this situation, but apparently you are going to pretend that the words don’t mean what everyone thinks they do. Am I right?
“I’m not a sociopath/psychopath, I just support one and voted for one.”
Trump is a psychopath. He’s a psychopathic liar. He is a megalomaniac. He is fixated on only those things that, in his twisted mind, make him look good. Damn the Truth; full speed ahead. Ahead, though, lies the ruination of the country.
And you idiots who voted for him…you also are shit. You voted for him knowing full well how atrocious he is.
Funny you mention Chelsea Manning, because I found myself agreeing with her tweet on this matter. :eek:
[QUOTE=Chelsea Manning]
so, biggest baddest most $$ military on earth cries about a few trans people but funds the F-35?
[/QUOTE]
The cost of having surgeons, etc. – who the Defense Department already employs – performing gender reassignments for transgendered members of the Armed Forces wouldn’t even be the interest on the $400 billion (cite)(another cite) wasted on the F-35 project.
Who, exactly, is the service chief questioning this? Because this is sharply at odds with numerous public comments of not just the current, but also recent service chiefs.
Even General Amos, who publicly opposed the change in policy, said a year later something to the effect of the matter being dead and nobody ever raises it. I can find the quote if you want.
So are all these chiefs lying to the public that gays in the military is some kind of problem that they are concerned about? Because that’s the only way I can think of how their comments and your comment can be squared. And who exactly is holding back on their opinion?
You can push almost whatever you want in this country. But you know perfectly well he’s not going to get a literal Muslim ban even if he gets allowed to ban certain Muslim dominate country immigration.
I doubt he any interest in trying to ban transgenders from serving, probably not enough enough to dash off an ill-considered executive order. It’s early yet, but I take this as both:
A) A further effort at distraction from ongoing Russian scandals.
B) A signal to congressional Republicans that if they want to make transgenderism a wedge issue in 2018, they’ll get support from the White House, or at least no opposition.
There is a Poitico piece linked to in the GD thread that this was in order to get certain GOP Congresscritters on board with voting for a military spending bill-- they wanted to take out funding for Transgender medical costs. I think that makes the most sense.
(1) There are many levels of executive procedure. A tweet is not the same as a duly promulgated regulation, and overriding an existing policy is not always the same as instituting a new one;
(2) Discrimination can be challenged as an equal protection or gender discrimination statutory violation, while inclusion cannot be.
but funds the F-35?