Come on, if you start with a pretty great nation, you can’t make it “Great Again” without turning it into a dystopian hellscape first.
Okay, fair enough.
Just one last point: I’m right and you’re wrong.
It is good that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, Jr. has declared that there will be no changes to the policy until “the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance”
In other words, he has made it clear that Trump’s idiotic tweets do not have any authority whatsoever.
“Dunford himself was not aware that Trump was going to announce the ban, a U.S. official said.”
So at this point, it is just Trump’s opinion. It bears no official weight at all. And he didn’t bother to tell anyone before he spewed it out into the twitterverse. I’d love to know who “HIS” Generals and others he spoke with. Likely this is just made up bullshit as well.
I guess he thought something was missing since he hadn’t had a public fight with the Sec of Defense yet, and decided to make Mattis look like an unprepared jackass while he was on vacation.
lol
The same way they identfied gays and lesbians: by their statements, by snooping, or by others outing them against their will (which was often done back in the day). I don’t get the question here. Why does this person need to hide and lie about who they are?
That’s great, since I believe that Mattis is one of those (along with Sessions) who can decide if the president is mentally unfit under Article 25, section 4. Keep it up Trump, and you’ll be out on “vacation” before Christmas.
I believe Idle Thoughts has had a change of heart:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818068
The person SHOULDN’T have to lie about who they are, that’s for sure, but could feel to be forced to lie because they want to keep their job/rank/calling in the military, that’s why I asked.
I was asking in the same spirit as your question as to how losing a few thousand members of the military would impact national security.
I don’t know much about the nuclear triad (though probably more than Trump), and certainly nothing classified, but I count 9 current missle squadrons. The loss of one accounts for approximately 11% of our nuclear missiles that can be deployed that way.
So, does the loss of 11% of our nuclear missile squadrons actually impact our national security? The other 89% are not enough of a deterrent? (Not to mention the other two sides of the triad).
Personally, I don’t think that the loss of a single squad, or even two, or possibly even half would be causing china to be invading us, as that is the definition you are using for things that impact our national security.
The “national security” hijack is really pointless and beating one’s head against a tree in the midst of an unnoticed forest.
I’m genuinely curious here. What other medical issues do you think military menbers should be denied treatment for? You do have a sound medical reason they should be denied treatment, right?
Waaaaah! Whiny loser Joint Chiefs can’t accept that Hillary lost the election. Nothing more refreshing than a cup of military top brass tears while watching United States Department of Defense heads explode. Suck it up, snowflakes! #MAGA
I fully respect your personal focus on transgendered people’s rights and freedoms but national security is neither pointless nor a hijack when discussing military hiring practices.
I have to say…reassignment surgery seems like the ultimate in elective surgery. I understand that it might be needed for once to live a happier, more fulfilled life but it never occurred to me that this was covered when someone was in the military.
There is no medical need for it. I am OK with them having it doneand continuing to serve in the military, but it should be out of pocket.
Re: Bold. Are you a doctor? Or their doctor? I know I am not, and thus in no position to determine that. Edit to add: Which is to say, if it is determined that it is NOT needed, then I agree with you, it should be out of pocket. Which I think it already is, but i could be mistaken.
Erectile dysfunction drugs are prescribed for PTSD for the same reason at 10 times the cost of re-assignment surgery.
Or do you claim no medical need for the drugs?
Slight hijack.
Are you saying erectile dysfunction is a symptom of PTSD? I hadn’t heard that before. It doesn’t surprise me, I just never considered it.
I, for one, readily agree that this disgustingly broad policy will result in good troops being kicked out for no reason, and that makes our military less capable in some way. But I do agree with Una’s point (or at least what I think she’s saying) is that when the tsunami is hitting New York City, worrying about how the damage to theaters will impact the arts is a secondary concern to the enormous fucking disaster that is raining down.
Hateful intolerance is the major problem here, not the loss of some combat capability.
Just going by the articles that state the military prescribes ED drugs as part of treatment of PTSD.