This. Everything Trump has done, or attempted to do, has been to erase the black man from our nation’s history. It’s why he is so fucking determined to wipe out Obamacare. It actually has the black man’s name in it.
This - and he;s a ‘Christian’ piece of shit.
Nope, it’s not obvious to me. The Army drew down by 16,419 in the past year. Isn’t that 16,419 people with skills, talents, and experience? Did the loss of those people hurt the Army and thus our national security? There are plenty of categories of people who are potentially talented who could benefit the military, but are otherwise unable to serve. That still doesn’t harm national security, because there are plenty of people who are able to join that do. So, saying upwards of 15,000 people might be kicked out is not a convincing argument for why the policy is harmful to national security and neither is saying there are some people who won’t be allowed to join. Neither of these things is anything new, and somehow didn’t affect national security before. But now, because the group being talked about is transgender individuals, all of a sudden it harms national security? Doubtful at best.
Military personnel tend to vote Republican, don’t they? While I’m sure many a soldier happens to also be prejudiced against the transgender, this seems to me like the kind of thing that could be played by the Democrats to make a play for military votes.
How many people get out of the US military every year, other than for non-renewal? Knowing that will go a long way to showing how significant this is in terms of organizational upheaval.
To me and from a purely organizational point of view, the problem is mainly one of sudden changes of direction. Not knowing what’s going to happen from one day to the other isn’t something conservatives and/or those who work with explosives tend to like very much. This problem would be the same whether the people being kicked out were the transgender, the left-handed, muslims or people born outside the USA (whether citizens by birth or not), even though the actual numbers affected would evidently be different.
Yeah, but her emails!
I am not defending this move but that 15,000 number seems pretty darn hard to believe.
An example – I served on a submarine, and our LAN manager was the best on the waterfront. Other boats constantly had problems with their LANs that seriously affected their ability to go to see and perform training and missions. When available, they would “borrow” our LAN manager since he was nearly the only one skilled enough to manage LANs on subs that were built a decade or more before computer networks were considered necessary on ships.
He was LGBT.
If he had been booted, several submarines would have had their capacity to go to sea and operate significantly diminished.
This seems like a lot of “could be” and “maybe” and not a lot of analysis on the topic, although I see it has been moved to the Pit, so I guess I won’t expect much.
Do you have any data, for instance, on how many transgender pilots there are in the Air Force? And what harm to National Security would arise if these pilots were kicked out?
What about some other “very needed skills that are hard to find”? Any data on, say, Arabic linguists? How many transgender individuals are Arabic linguists? What affect on National Security would kicking them out have?
So far you have got nothing except “It’s bad, therefore it’s harmful to national security” If you had stopped at “This 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” then I would whole-heartedly agree with you.
Again, draw-downs deliberately look for folks without critical skills. Do you think they kicked out Pashtun and rare-language translators? Or top-notch computer programmers? Or the very best high-tech welders and machinists? Of course not. They looked for the ones they could lose without harming the mission at all.
A blanket ban doesn’t take into account skills and experience and needs of the services. The best Arabic or Farsi or other transator might be trans… now they’re gone. The best programmer or welder might be trans – now they’re gone.
Losing critical skills harms the military. Somewhere in those 15,000 are some critical skills, and somewhere out there among the general trans population are people who would be great assets to the military but now can’t serve.
Harmful and dumb.
Was he transgender? What rank was this person?
The Captains of these submarines are more of a threat to National Security for allowing such shoddy LAN managers on their boats.
Because we’re artificially limiting the pool from which we can draw qualified members of the military.
So, you still got nothing but “Could be” and “somewhere, probably” Nice ranting though, so you got that going for you.
… Except that there is nothing “christian” about him, as you already know.
This is a good start by Trump, but not nearly far enough. Thanks to this decision, less Americans will be killing. There are probably a lot of capable young people who will now be serving their fellow man instead of carrying out orders from Trump.
So if I pointed out some trans service-folks with critical skills, you’d change your opinion? That’s all that it takes?
If so, you’re ridiculous. Would you be fine with a ban on black people unless it were proven that some black sailors had critical skills? Would you be fine with a ban on Samoans until you met a highly-skilled Samoan pilot?
Any blanket ban like this does no good whatsoever and can only do harm. If this isn’t obvious to you, then your judgement and analysis on military policy is about as interesting or useful as a duck’s.
I still want to see how Trump fucks them out of their benefits and retirements. You know he will.
The problem isn’t “shoddy LAN managers”, which anyway the captains don’t get to choose or “allow” on board; the problem is putting LANs where none had been intended to go, in a space which is a bitch both geometrically and materials-wise.
Just setting up a home LAN can already be a pain in the ass, and they’re specifically designed to be easy to set up and access: not the case in a submarine.
I told you a story from my personal experience.
But I get it – you think it’d be fine to ban Samoans, or Native Americans, or people over 6’6", or left handed redheads. Just until someone found some skilled folks that fit into that category.
That’s incredibly stupid, but you’re free to be incredibly stupid if you want.
I know he was LGBT (found out after I left) – but I don’t know which category. All LGBT were banned from serving until recently – he kept his identity secret (at great risk).
That you think sub Captains choose their LAN managers shows how little you know about the military.
Let’s say your CC came up to you one day and said, “SMSgt Manson, we need to downsize our unit. We’re currently authorized 65 enlisted billets, we need to cut that down to 62.” Would you, A) carefully choose the 3 airmen you’d recommend be let go, or B) draw names randomly out of a hat? Explain your answer.