Perhaps the trouble is you don’t know how to read period, and not simply have trouble comprehending the written word.
THIS is the sentence that you think shows me claiming “that national security is not going to be harmed if it is not something that prevent Chinese invasion”??
I mean, really? You must just be trolling now. Or need reading glasses or something.
Nor do I. On that we can agree.
Considering that you replied to my post, wherein I specifically said that the country could deter or repel invasion just fine even if we kicked out all the non-white christian straight men with a derision about how I must be shivering and staying up at night about the .5% loss from trump’s planned policy change, I think it may in fact be you yourself, who is needing some assistance with your literacy.
Yes, that was the standard that you set for those claiming that this change in policy would harm national security. If that is not what you meant to do, then why did you bring it up?
Now, if you were setting one standard for others, and another standard for yourself, I understand completely.
But, apparently, discussing how trump’s ban on transgendered individuals in the military will impact military readiness is not appropriate for this particular pit thread, so you are obviously free to make any response, but I think I will bow out of this particular side discussion.
Heaping praise on a Republican for not doing something evil for a change is like heaping praise on a psychotic teenager for not setting fire to the dog again this week. McCain voted in favour of all of Trump’s cabinet picks but one. He’s also the guy who would say that Trump’s behaviour is troubling and disturbing then go on to support him anyway. McCain, like all Republicans, can take a long walk off a short pier for all I care.
I am not a foul-weather enemy.
Fair enough.
The biggest threat to national security is Trump. Pull your head out of your ass.
Sorry, threats to national security are no longer allowed to be discussed in this thread.
Oh shit. Am I in trouble? Uh oh
Not from me. From other posters who junior-modded to chastise people for discussing a topic that was brought up right in the original OP.
No matter how many people “this”, “+1” or “second/third” Una’s decree, it’s a perfectly reasonable part of the discussion.
I would
It would not.
OK, look. I agree that if you’re talking about a military issue, national security is going to be part of the discussion, but for crying-out-loud, in THIS particular case it shouldn’t be the dominating theme spreading across 8 pages because some doofus wants to quibble over the meaning of “harms our national security.”
It’s just plain silly by this point, and **Una **is right to call it a hijack.
Manson1972 doesn’t “support” the ban; he doesn’t “approve” of Trump; he just wants to derail this thread by focusing on one aspect of the issue that doesn’t address the terrible injustice or cruelty or pettiness of Trump’s decree, and maybe even trivializes the consequences of his out-of-nowhere ban on transgendered people in the armed forces.
I’m far more concerned to know the impact this will have on the lives of transgendered folks currently serving, or how it will affect recruitment practices and attitudes in the military, and how the military top brass are going to deal with this wild style of decree-by-tweet that their Commander in Chief has adopted.
I’m curious as to whether the president even has the authority to do such a thing, without going through congress or whatever.
What I’m not interested in is reading what **manson **thinks does or doesn’t constitute harm to national security or seeing him quote himself for the umpteenth time. Give it a rest chum.
You realize that harming National Security was in the OP right? Why would he bring it up if he didn’t want to discuss it? Here, I will quote it for you:
(bolding mine).
Did you know this was originally in Great Debates? You know, the forum that requires proof and evidence and not just sweeping statements of what a poster may “feel” is wrong?
How can a thread be derailed by discussing a topic that was in the original friggin’ OP? If you want to derail the thread by chastising users who discuss a particular viewpoint expressed in the OP, then go ahead.
Are you somehow prevented from ignoring this thread? Can you not go to the other threads that discuss this issue? Are you being forced to read every post in this particular thread that discusses a viewpoint put forth from the thread starter that has no evidence or analysis that his viewpoint is valid?
You want to just come into the thread and say “Yep, the ban is bad. Trump is bad. People who support the ban are bad!” then good for you. What purpose does that serve? What is the discussion? Those like you who want to shut down discussion seem to just want to continuously state how bad the ban is. We get it. It’s bad. You know it. I know it. Most people know it. Give it a rest chum.
Exactly. If you are going to bring up national security to attack the ban then you have to expect some kind of counter argument. It’s gone on way too long but you can’t act like some hater brought it up out of the blue to derail the conversation.
Just because it wasn’t brought up out of the blue doesn’t mean it was ever a legitimate argument. The OP explained what he meant very early on. And that statement is trivially true. Inherently reducing the number of potential recruits for reasons other than their ability to serve will weaken national security. Maybe by a little, maybe by a lot.
manson then tried to do that goalpost shifting where “harm national security” changed to “significantly harm national security.” So even he effectively admitted that the original query was resolved.
Plus we now know that manson himself agrees the order is bigoted and wrong, so all his vociferous arguments against the OP were pointless. It didn’t fucking matter if it affected national security, the OP’s point still stands that this is wrong.
Shift? What about teleport?
*Decree? *
As far as I am concerned, **Una **has contributed far more to this thread and to my appreciation for the impact of Trump’s cruel and petty action than manson has done in 8 pages of repetitive “but really?” and “hey look at me.”
On this we are in agreement.
I always appreciate Una’s input but this is a Pit thread. Hard for me to complain about a few knobs with a bad case of “Somebody is wrong on the internet!”
Regardless, the biggest security risk is TRUMP.
He gives away top secrets to the Russians. The Russians own him. He takes his orders from them. He’s their lap dog. He does NOT confer with admirals, generals, or advisors, because he “knows everything”. He tried to wreck NATO. He “rules by decree” via Twitter based on pure uninformed impulse with no regard to repercussions.
He IS our biggest security risk. He IS the biggest danger to the military and everyone else.
Yeah but waddya gonna do? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I dunno. Used to be I thought Congress and the courts were there to keep the balance and keep things sort of in control. I no longer believe that. Our system is broken.