I apologize if this is hijack, but I feel the need to share… I work for a government agency in DC, not DoD, and was assigned to participate in a four day lockdown at the Pentagon this week (Tuesday thru Friday) to help form policy for transgender service members. Long story short, my time is valuable, and I didn’t feel my particular government programs would be affected by any TG policy(ies) implemented by DoD, so I pushed back, and managed to get out of the lockdown. Given the invitees to that lockdown, I now regret my efforts to weasel out of that meeting. I wish I had been there to see the reaction around the table as the “policy” tweets came down. I’ve been in contact with some of the attendees, and the reactions are reportedly priceless. Very high level DoD officials were taken off guard.
As an aside, who in the ever loving fuck establishes policy via tweet? I’ve been in government policy for many years. Policy changes require vetting, planning, comms plans, buy in, etc. From my sources, none of that was done. From what I hear, it was all about a hold out on an amendment related to building that stupid wall. SERIOUSLY?!?
The ACLU has a petition which, according to the webpage, requires 50,000 signatures. The page isn’t real clear why, or what the petition can accomplish, but if you feel like voicing your displeasure and you don’t mind sharing your name and e-mail address, here’s a link.
<Link removed>
bobot, other than signing a petition, is there anything, practically speaking, we can do? I mean a call to representatives wouldn’t do any good, would it?
I don’t really know. I give money to the ACLU, and according to the info they send me they are quite busy fighting Trump in various ways. My opinion is that if you want to do something, anything, throw 20 bucks or something the ACLU’s way.
Yeah, just what I thought. No links from you, since you know you are wrong and now you have to twist words that you don’t even link to. A liar, and now a coward for not quoting anything that defends your own statements. Since you are a big coward, I’ve linked my own quotes for you from page one. Please point out which ones condone or agree with a ban on transgender people serving in the military:
This is a simple question asking why the poster thinks a ban on transgender people harm national security. I cannot think of any way to twist this to “I am fine with a ban on transgender people” If you can, perhaps you can state it?
This quote shows that I think the ban is “stupid” and not just “weird” as described by another poster. I also state that the military has kicked out people for stupid stuff before, and wonder why this time is such a threat to national security. Do you think this means I think banning transgender people is a good idea? I called the ban “stupid” right in my post. How could you possibly think I consider it a good idea?
This quote reveals that I didn’t want to waste my time showing other times where the military was stupid to kick people out. Do you think that the military has never made bad decisions when it came to kicking people out? I don’t think that. Sometimes the DoD is stupid. Can you point to THIS statement as a proof that I think banning transgender people is a good idea? That would be a stretch.
This quote is asking the original poster for any sort of evidence that the ban is harmful to national security. Nowhere do I state the ban is a good idea, or think that it is “fine”
This quote expresses doubt that kicking out 15,000 people from the military harms national security. It really has nothing to do with transgender people, but more to do with the amount of people that can be kicked out of the military without affecting National Security.
This quote is where I agree with the original poster that the ban is “a cruel and stupid policy by the President that is directly harmful to the 15,000 transgender individuals that are currently serving in the military and to others who might like to join” and I disagree that it harms National Security
This quote is where I blame the Captain of a submarine more for harming National Security than an enlisted LAN manager.
So, this is the first page. Where you said “Back on page one, you were defending the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons”
I find nothing in my statements that defends the military practice of kicking good troops out for stupid reasons. So again, back up what you say or admit you are a moron, a liar, and a coward.
Sorry, but I just saw this. Yes, I disagree. In my opinion, National Security is affected when units that are critical to National Security are declared Non Mission Capable (NMC). If a nuclear missile squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a bomber squadron is declared NMC, then yes, our National Security is affected. If a Civil Engineering squadron is declared NMC, then no, our National Security is not affected in any meaningful way, because our National Security does not depend on Civil Engineering squadrons, in normal times. I’m sure you can devise scenarios where our entire country will fall to the Chinese unless this one Red Horse Squadron can get electrical power operational, but that is far fetched (I can also only speak for the Air Force, not the other services)
And to reiterate, since some people apparently don’t know how to read, I think the ban is stupid and bigoted.
Every time that particular bit of nonsense comes up, every media outlet with a spine should interweave the story with a montage no less than a full minute in total length consisting of various iterations of the call-and-response from the campaign:
Hey, thanks for jerking everyone around for almost 240 posts though. It couldn’t have been more obvious from very early on that everyone else was using a different definition, … insult deleted
[Moderating] bobot, posting links to petitions, protests, and other “calls to action” are against the terms of service for the board. Please avoid doing this in the future. I’ve removed the link from your post.
You're so right about this ,trump is a piece of shit ! He went after Obama not being a citizen to try and get Obama impeach ! How the hell is this " making America great again "???
Really? What is your definition of harms National Security? A Captain instead of a Major in a command position in one military unit across the entire DoD? It’s not my fault that many people use a definition of National Security that has no bearing on real life military effectiveness. In retrospect, I guess the question of “What do you mean by harming National Security?” would be a prudent question, but one that I surmise would be answered similarly to “Why does that matter? This ban is wrong, and for you to question it means you are a transgender hater, and probably homophobic too!” :rolleyes:
I guess the one good thing about this is a lot of people will no longer have Trump for their boss. He’ll have to get someone else to commit the war crimes he promised.
I posted a concrete example in this thread of how the loss of a few dozen people, discharged solely due to their sexuality, resulted in significant detriment to national security and endangered our troops. So perhaps you might want to hold off on calling other people stupid.
