Donald Trump

mrussel1 said:

Add the Joint Chiefs to the list of officials that were unaware of the change of policy on transgender.  So now, it's Joint Chiefs, Armed Services, Pentagon and the Secretary.  When Trump said he "consulted his generals and military experts"...who the fuck is he talking about?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html

mrussel1 said:

Add the Joint Chiefs to the list of officials that were unaware of the change of policy on transgender.  So now, it's Joint Chiefs, Armed Services, Pentagon and the Secretary.  When Trump said he "consulted his generals and military experts"...who the fuck is he talking about?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/trump-military-transgender-ban-joint-chiefs/index.html

BS44325 said:

The Juggler said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

BS44325 said:

mfc2006 said:

I'm curious how the Trump supporters feel about his anti-transgender stance.

Im genuinely interested. Please explain.

About the same as most Democrats felt about Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, his Defence of Marriage Act, or Obama's same policy on transgendered in the military until he altered it just one year ago.

none if this is relevant to the conversation. these things happened in the 1990s. you can evolve and change your views on issues. those that don't evolve with the emergence of new facts and new information are actually the stupid ones.

when all else fails, bring up hillary or bill clinton.

Right and transgendered in the military is only a one year old policy that most people didn't even have on their radar screen. The AMT was not offended by the seven years they were banned under Obama so I am not buying the outrage that it's offended today. This is just another one of the phony Trump is Hitler for returning to the original Obama policy. My answer above is a real answer on the issue. Everybody else's stance is emotional "my team is better" vomit.

Yea sure. How do you reconcile all the BS Trump campaigned on, evidence to the contrary and the pentagon being caught off guard? Fitting screen name or more brilliance?

I'm not sure what you mean? I could be wrong but I don't believe he took a stance on transgendered in the military specifically. I am also not sure that the pentagon was caught off guard...maybe on the timing of the announcement but not necessarily the policy. 

He basically just fired every transgendered service member via tweet and you're unsure on whether Trump took a stance on the issue? Where do you get your news from? Do you need PJFan to post the Tweet? The military asked for a six month extension of the review period. They didn't ask for a ban. Caught of guard. McMaster supported the policy and the Rand Corporation study determined that the costs were negligible. Trump's blowing more shit out his ass and you seem confused as to Trump's policy?
 

A stand "during the campaign". Do you even read your own posts? How can I respond to you when you don't even know what you are writing? You should institute a 6 month review period for everything you write...then you just might be able to follow along. Brilliance. Zero entertainment.

It's one thing to have been fooled into voting for Trump. It's another thing altogether to still be supporting this epic disaster 6 months in. 

What if you weren't fooled but chose to support him because the alternative was and still could be worse? Nothing has been offered as an acceptable alternative in the last 6 months. What if an acceptable alternative never comes? You just called his voter a fool and now you want that voter to join you? Why would that voter do that when you have just insulted and demonstrated your lack of understanding of his/her vote? Who is the fool?

Look everyone, Joey Buttafuco is in the White House:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/27/trumps-white-house-goes-full-reality-tv-as-scaramucci-spreads-innuendo-about-priebus-in-call-into-cnn/?utm_term=.4f6a54bb8aa6&wpisrc=nl_most-draw10&wpmm=1

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

The Juggler said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

BS44325 said:

mfc2006 said:

I'm curious how the Trump supporters feel about his anti-transgender stance.

Im genuinely interested. Please explain.

About the same as most Democrats felt about Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, his Defence of Marriage Act, or Obama's same policy on transgendered in the military until he altered it just one year ago.

none if this is relevant to the conversation. these things happened in the 1990s. you can evolve and change your views on issues. those that don't evolve with the emergence of new facts and new information are actually the stupid ones.

when all else fails, bring up hillary or bill clinton.

Right and transgendered in the military is only a one year old policy that most people didn't even have on their radar screen. The AMT was not offended by the seven years they were banned under Obama so I am not buying the outrage that it's offended today. This is just another one of the phony Trump is Hitler for returning to the original Obama policy. My answer above is a real answer on the issue. Everybody else's stance is emotional "my team is better" vomit.

Yea sure. How do you reconcile all the BS Trump campaigned on, evidence to the contrary and the pentagon being caught off guard? Fitting screen name or more brilliance?

I'm not sure what you mean? I could be wrong but I don't believe he took a stance on transgendered in the military specifically. I am also not sure that the pentagon was caught off guard...maybe on the timing of the announcement but not necessarily the policy. 

He basically just fired every transgendered service member via tweet and you're unsure on whether Trump took a stance on the issue? Where do you get your news from? Do you need PJFan to post the Tweet? The military asked for a six month extension of the review period. They didn't ask for a ban. Caught of guard. McMaster supported the policy and the Rand Corporation study determined that the costs were negligible. Trump's blowing more shit out his ass and you seem confused as to Trump's policy?
 

A stand "during the campaign". Do you even read your own posts? How can I respond to you when you don't even know what you are writing? You should institute a 6 month review period for everything you write...then you just might be able to follow along. Brilliance. Zero entertainment.

It's one thing to have been fooled into voting for Trump. It's another thing altogether to still be supporting this epic disaster 6 months in. 

What if you weren't fooled but chose to support him because the alternative was and still could be worse? Nothing has been offered as an acceptable alternative in the last 6 months. What if an acceptable alternative never comes? You just called his voter a fool and now you want that voter to join you? Why would that voter do that when you have just insulted and demonstrated your lack of understanding of his/her vote? Who is the fool?

What's with the notion that the left needs to somehow convince the current trump supporter to join them? Anyone who would vote for trump again is a lost cause. Dems need to focus on increasing trumout and getting some trump voters with regrets. For the group that told us they don't care about our feelings, why should we now care about theirs? 

cincybearcat said:

You know - on the trans-gendered issue... I of course was immediately pissed off by the language.  And when the costs were mentioned I thought to myself...hmmm...do I think the government should be paying for that?  Is that health care or is it something different?  And while I certainly don't agree with the ban I wanted to look into the cost a little bit more.  

Lots of different estimates, but one I found in Washington Post (I know FAKE NEWS) said it would cost the tax payers $8.4 million.  Wow, that is a lot of $.  Certainly not a lot compared to the military budget though.  And then I saw that the military (tax payers) have been paying roughly $84 million for erectile dysfunction medication.  Hmmmm....$8.4 is even more a drop in the bucket.  

So while I think looking at the financial cost of everything is a pretty sane and good thing to do, in this case it's just another excuse to push a discriminatory agenda.

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - on the trans-gendered issue... I of course was immediately pissed off by the language.  And when the costs were mentioned I thought to myself...hmmm...do I think the government should be paying for that?  Is that health care or is it something different?  And while I certainly don't agree with the ban I wanted to look into the cost a little bit more.  

Lots of different estimates, but one I found in Washington Post (I know FAKE NEWS) said it would cost the tax payers $8.4 million.  Wow, that is a lot of $.  Certainly not a lot compared to the military budget though.  And then I saw that the military (tax payers) have been paying roughly $84 million for erectile dysfunction medication.  Hmmmm....$8.4 is even more a drop in the bucket.  

So while I think looking at the financial cost of everything is a pretty sane and good thing to do, in this case it's just another excuse to push a discriminatory agenda.

Yup! Even worse when you consider that all of Trump's golf weekends at Mar-a-lago cost WAY WAY more than these medical expenses too. The medical expense thing is a little more than just an excuse. It's a bald-faced lie. Not only that, but it's an offensive lie. As though the healthcare for thousands of military personnel and soldiers isn't worth $8M when, as you mention, the military budget is so massive and they spend 10x more on Viagra! (BTW, wtf is up with $84M being spent on Viagra????? That seems beyond excessive. Someone should look into that number - seems fishy).

Only $41 million on viagra....another $43 on other ED drugs.

Now - do get your point but I would also say, just cause we are spending $ poorly in one place doesn;t mean we should cut costs elsewhere.  But to make it the sole purpose for keeping people out of the military and considering it's not a complete overhaul of the military spending is just nuts and shows the true purpose.  

And my other bottom line - if someone wants to serve in the military...put themselves on the line for me and my family...why would you want to stop anyone from doing that?  I mean - you should weed out the mentally unstable like our Commander in Chief and some others...but an able minded/able bodied individual? It's just stupid.  

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

You know - on the trans-gendered issue... I of course was immediately pissed off by the language.  And when the costs were mentioned I thought to myself...hmmm...do I think the government should be paying for that?  Is that health care or is it something different?  And while I certainly don't agree with the ban I wanted to look into the cost a little bit more.  

Lots of different estimates, but one I found in Washington Post (I know FAKE NEWS) said it would cost the tax payers $8.4 million.  Wow, that is a lot of $.  Certainly not a lot compared to the military budget though.  And then I saw that the military (tax payers) have been paying roughly $84 million for erectile dysfunction medication.  Hmmmm....$8.4 is even more a drop in the bucket.  

So while I think looking at the financial cost of everything is a pretty sane and good thing to do, in this case it's just another excuse to push a discriminatory agenda.

Yup! Even worse when you consider that all of Trump's golf weekends at Mar-a-lago cost WAY WAY more than these medical expenses too. The medical expense thing is a little more than just an excuse. It's a bald-faced lie. Not only that, but it's an offensive lie. As though the healthcare for thousands of military personnel and soldiers isn't worth $8M when, as you mention, the military budget is so massive and they spend 10x more on Viagra! (BTW, wtf is up with $84M being spent on Viagra????? That seems beyond excessive. Someone should look into that number - seems fishy).

Only $41 million on viagra....another $43 on other ED drugs.

Now - do get your point but I would also say, just cause we are spending $ poorly in one place doesn;t mean we should cut costs elsewhere.  But to make it the sole purpose for keeping people out of the military and considering it's not a complete overhaul of the military spending is just nuts and shows the true purpose.  

And my other bottom line - if someone wants to serve in the military...put themselves on the line for me and my family...why would you want to stop anyone from doing that?  I mean - you should weed out the mentally unstable like our Commander in Chief and some others...but an able minded/able bodied individual? It's just stupid.  

I am not saying that they shouldn't spend money on ED drugs. I'm suggesting that I find it hard to believe that that much is actually being spent on ED drugs. That number just seems excessive given how many people are in the military. It makes me wonder if that number is being fudged by someone because the money is actually being spent elsewhere or something, or is being embezzled or god knows what. I support the military spending as much as is needed to fully support the medical needs of all personnel - I would never ever consider money actually spent on that poorly spent. But I would want that money to actually go to medical care, and that number for ED drugs just makes me think that perhaps someone is lining their pockets with money that's allocated for medical costs. Just a theory, obviously.