Can any of his subordinates, Cabinet members etc. just say “I’m sorry but I don’t use(or even follow) Twitter. This is officially a non-issue until it comes through the usual official channels”…or has Twitter become an official channel of communication they must follow?
That is my feeling exactly. This isn’t a policy, it isn’t even a memo, its a fucking tweet. With no indication as to what it means, how it will be implemented, possible implications or anything. Its just something that happened to be on his mind at 6AM yesterday morning. Something which a week later he can claim he never said. General Dunford in Crybaby Boobies post had the right idea. Until he has taken the effort to move this beyond the 140 character stage, everyone should just treat this as the ramblings of a diseased mind rather than an actual change in policy. If we can learn the difference between a tweet and a policy, then there is a slim remote chance that he might be able to figure out the difference as well.
I took this to mean those generals who he considers loyal, (i.e. have decided to be spineless yes men with their nose shoved up his ass) as opposed to the larger majority of generals who actually care about the state of the military.
When I heard McCain says that the Senate is not subordinate to the President, but rather his equals, I worried Rump would lash out. And I think this is it, Rump doesn’t want to go directly after McCain with outpouring of support after the cancer Dx, so he does this end around right in the face of the Chairman of the Armed Service Committee.
He can’t adjust to the non-business way of doing things.
He’s used to firing someone (assuming he actually gets up the nerve) and security walks 'em out the door.
Who knew discharging thousands from the military could be so complicated?
If he doesn’t do anything more then the tweets have zero effect. As the head of the joint chiefs said, the order has to be received by the secretary of defense, and implementation instructions have to come from the secretary to the military. 45 may or may not do any of this but until he does the tweets are effectively null (except to distract people, stir them up, and inflame his base).
How do we know that it was actually Trump that made those tweets? As a security matter, the military would absolutely need to get confirmation of any orders from this source through at least one other channel as well.
I took it to mean some retiree he saw on Fox.
I spent my day being interviewed by the media and reaching out to transgender veterans and active service members who are furious and scared. One of my friends is a twice-wounded combat veteran transgender woman, who came out under Ash Carter’s directive, and now is facing potential discharge just as she’s about to go through some advanced training as an NCO. She’s wondering how so many chickenhawk conservatives can cast doubt and aspersions on her character and abilities, when she has been on the ground fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, taking a bullet and being injured by an IED.
Her CO is advising her to “recant” being transgender, so maybe they can save her career by saying it was all “a mistake.” She is facing an incredible dilemma here. Live her life authentically and with honor but be kicked to the curb by a golden-spoon billionaire man-baby vulgarian, or lie under oath to continue serving the country she loves.
I wish I could give her an answer. It’s a shame that both our President and those who support him in this are so devoid of honor that they can’t even understand the situation.
I also find it sickly ironic that on that same day, July 26 in 1948, President Truman started the integration of the Armed Forces by Executive Order. That’s what being Presidential really means.
:mad:
I know what I would do in such a situation, but that would be the right choice for me.
I’m very sorry for your friend and all the other soldiers concerned. Keep up the good fight, Una.
But what I’m asking myself the whole time: How would they apply this policy and identify the transgendered soldiers in a constitutional and legal way? We learned in this thread that estimations of their number wildly differ, so how would they be identified? Force everybody in the military to make an official declaration about their gender? Go after allegations and hearsay and force medical or psychological exams? Torturesome interrogation of suspects? And who would be the executive agency for this identification? I really can’t imagine.
I’m fairly certain I changed my position to agree that there will be a small and meaningless effect on National Security, and not “No” effect.
So sure, I’ll agree that National Security, say if it were a numerical scale currently at 100.0000 before the stupid ban, would stand at 99.9999 if the ban, which I’ve stated is stupid, were to go into affect.
So, sure, a negative effect. A meaningful one? Nope.
I agree that there would be a small effect. So small, in fact, that it will be meaningless. But still there I suppose, but absent of any real-world consequence.
Do you want an in-depth review of our nuclear triad, and the purpose of it? Including what the loss of a high percentage of our nuclear missiles would result in?
Or are you just asking to be difficult?
Depends on how one defines “meaningful”. I’d put the harm at more than .00001, considering future ramifications for retention and recruitment. If the US military is widely seen as a discriminatory and bigoted organization that sometimes arbitrarily boots people due to prejudice, then retention and recruitment could be significantly harmed.
My apologies, I Was thinking of another guy, iiiandiii. If you see Idle Thoughts, remind him that he has a civic duty to vote. We can investigate Russian meddling all year, but the bottom line is that Trump won because Dem voters stayed home. It didn’t help that Hillary was a poor candidate, chosen by the DNC super delegates rather than voters because she did not promote a single payer system, in accordance with the wishes of the insurance industry funders of the Democratic Party, but still, is Trump really a better alternative? Exhibit #20985, the transgendered ban, tells us he is not.
Sorry, transgendered folks! You don’t deserve this! I know a TG Iraq vet (ok, a gay cros-desser. Is that covered by this ban, too?) who suffered multiple injuries during her tour of duty. The injuries are no less real than those sustained by cis folks. Shame!
I agree that the discharge of a few dozen people based solely due to their sexuality, harmed the units that they were stationed in and endangered our troops.
They did do this.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Says Transgender Policy Won’t Change Yet
Which is unsurprising as there is paperwork involved - official policy isn’t twitter based.
Apology accepted. At least if you learn how to spell my username… 
At least you got the total number of i’s right, even if they’re arranged wrong and you forgot the y.
I thought we had already agreed to not argue about what “meaningful” meant?