ADVERTISEMENT

Trump bans transgender people from military service

IMG_8863.jpg
 
There are 7000 transgenders in the military. That isnt a small number!

Philosophy, Trump is consistent. Going back to the 50s. But it also tells me that he is worried that the Russian hoax is getting closer.
 
Ridiculous. The cost argument is total BS as well. Every single day with this crap.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...n-transgender-people-serving-military-n786621
Has he found a way to monetize this? I know (?) he might be in real trouble, but this is everyday. The story churn is amazing. He's a total ratings w----, right? If his motive were to be center of media attention 24/7 with unseen-before consistency of heat and story momentum, I'm not sure he's made any miscues along the way. Does he have a showrunner for this stuff?

The 'put the Kardashians to shame' media attention is just coincidental and/or a natural outgrowth from his unplanned ... stuff?
 
This explains why McCain was so quick travel and vote for the healthcare bill yesterday. McCain votes yes in exchange for this ban.
I don't think McCain was for this, he spoke out against it. He's trying to change the subject and thrives on chaos. Just when I think he can't go lower, he slithers under the bar. When, oh when, is the GOP going to stop this? And proclaiming a major civil rights move in a tweet? So inappropriate.
 
I don't think McCain was for this, he spoke out against it. He's trying to change the subject and thrives on chaos. Just when I think he can't go lower, he slithers under the bar. When, oh when, is the GOP going to stop this? And proclaiming a major civil rights move in a tweet? So inappropriate.

McCain gave almost the same exact answer when they previously lifted the ban so I think he was in on it and him speaking up today was all for show.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/286176-gop-calls-for-hearings-on-end-of-militarys-transgender-ban
 
Last edited:
Has he found a way to monetize this?

I haven't a clue how one would attempt to build a cost around this. My guess is that there are some ongoing costs associated with hormone therapy? What I don't understand is, if the individual were to bear the cost of the operation and associated transformation (which is my stance on paying, but that's another matter), why shouldn't they be able to serve? Assuming they can do whatever it is they are tasked with, who cares if they are male, female, or one of the 40 other definitions?

If they are inhibited from conducting the task in the same manner, which is the argument against females in certain roles, then that would be concern validity.
 
I haven't a clue how one would attempt to build a cost around this. My guess is that there are some ongoing costs associated with hormone therapy? What I don't understand is, if the individual were to bear the cost of the operation and associated transformation (which is my stance on paying, but that's another matter), why shouldn't they be able to serve?
Because that doesn't play to the base.
 
I haven't a clue how one would attempt to build a cost around this. My guess is that there are some ongoing costs associated with hormone therapy? What I don't understand is, if the individual were to bear the cost of the operation and associated transformation (which is my stance on paying, but that's another matter), why shouldn't they be able to serve? Assuming they can do whatever it is they are tasked with, who cares if they are male, female, or one of the 40 other definitions?

If they are inhibited from conducting the task in the same manner, which is the argument against females in certain roles, then that would be concern validity.
To be clear, transgender does not mean transitioning. There need be no operation, no hormones, no treatment of any kind. If there were, I've never heard that the military covers those expenses. Whom Trump has banned here are simply all the people who want the wrong box checked in their personnel file.
 
I haven't a clue how one would attempt to build a cost around this. My guess is that there are some ongoing costs associated with hormone therapy? What I don't understand is, if the individual were to bear the cost of the operation and associated transformation (which is my stance on paying, but that's another matter), why shouldn't they be able to serve? Assuming they can do whatever it is they are tasked with, who cares if they are male, female, or one of the 40 other definitions?

If they are inhibited from conducting the task in the same manner, which is the argument against females in certain roles, then that would be concern validity.
The 'this' I'm referring to is his insane media domination, not transitioning costs.
 
So apparently gender-reassignment surgery is on the list of surgeries the Pentagon will pay for when it comes to active duty personnel, but like all major surgeries, only if recommended by a doctor and signed off on by military officials. A fight over whether Congress should step in and change this threatened funding for Trump's wall, and when Mattis asked lawmakers for more time to study the issue, they went around him and appealed to the WH.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990
 
Isn't this a court case just waiting to happen?
Every thing is a court case just waiting to happen, but absent a statute on the matter, the President has wide discretion when it comes to matters of military personnel. I can't recall off the top of my head any court cases that apply anti-discrimination laws to the ability to serve in the military (i.e., I can't recall a court ever ruling that citizens have a right to serve). Someone more versed in this area of law might educate me on this point.
 
They'll sue his butt if he tries.

And guess what will happen then. Because of all the purity tests run by democratic voters and democratic leaning voters it'll eventually get to a Supreme Court that has a new radical republican on it. Guess which way that decision will go.
 
Although Trump says this was a military decision after consulting with the generals, evidentially the Pentagon was taken by surprise.
 
Although Trump says this was a military decision after consulting with the generals, evidentially the Pentagon was taken by surprise.
See the Politico article I linked above. Apparently this was an end-around run by the WH to save budget legislation that includes the wall. Pentagon wasn't only not consulted; they were opposed to the original legislative attempt to implement this.
 
See the Politico article I linked above. Apparently this was an end-around run by the WH to save budget legislation that includes the wall. Pentagon wasn't only not consulted; they were opposed to the original legislative attempt to implement this.

Plus the insurance coverage for the people who might be hit by falling 60kgs bales of drugs.

This Trump fella is very customer centric. Always thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
See the Politico article I linked above. Apparently this was an end-around run by the WH to save budget legislation that includes the wall. Pentagon wasn't only not consulted; they were opposed to the original legislative attempt to implement this.
That's right. I had read this article earlier today. Sometimes the news moves so fast, I can't remember what I've read where. That's even more special...he is able to discriminate between two different groups of people at the same time. Win-win.
 
Maybe the soldiers can get jobs at the new Wisconsin manufacturing plant Trump grandly announced he was responsible for negotiating? After all he took about the same amount of people out of the workforce today. Removing trained troops from the military has to be pretty expensive. I hope this cost of the unemployed military people doesn't delay our ability to build the Mexican border wall or maybe these suddenly unemployed troops can be assigned to build it?
 
Last edited:
Expect Trump to cut off their VA benefits with no notice because he said so. He flunked notice and due process
 
The Daily show touched on this subject last night and had a great interview with two retired transgender US Army veterans (one that was the first to receive France's highest military honour since WW2).


Its reported that the decision comes because Trump is trying to find funding for his fecking wall believe it or not :confused:

The figures they gave were that the largest saving on Transgender medical costs alone is an estimated $8.4m per annum (this is 0.001% of the total projected US military spend).

Meanwhile, costs for the Trump family spending time at his New York City and Palm Beach resorts (money that goes to companies in his name) is this year $60m alone.

Go figure!
 
Trump does this yet the narrative is always that Democrats start the culture wars, Democrats need to abandon the culture wars, and everything cultural is the fault of Democrats. I don't get it.

If anyone wants the debate on not covering the procedure in insurance, we can have that debate. We may disagree, but it is worth the discussion and there may be give and take. But Trump appeals to the rabid base that somehow never gets blamed for the so-called "culture war".
 
The Daily show touched on this subject last night and had a great interview with two retired transgender US Army veterans (one that was the first to receive France's highest military honour since WW2).


Its reported that the decision comes because Trump is trying to find funding for his fecking wall believe it or not :confused:

The figures they gave were that the largest saving on Transgender medical costs alone is an estimated $8.4m per annum (this is 0.001% of the total projected US military spend).

Meanwhile, costs for the Trump family spending time at his New York City and Palm Beach resorts (money that goes to companies in his name) is this year $60m alone.

Go figure!

Can't he just start another children's cancer charity? I've heard those are good money makers.
 
Does anyone know if Trump has actually done this? Or is it still just a tweet?
 
Does anyone know if Trump has actually done this? Or is it still just a tweet?
I've seen nothing about any more formal communication being issued. But does that make a difference? Format notwithstanding, this is a direct proclamation from the CIC.

The military is treating it as direction from their commander, but said they are waiting on further "guidance".
 
Every thing is a court case just waiting to happen, but absent a statute on the matter, the President has wide discretion when it comes to matters of military personnel. I can't recall off the top of my head any court cases that apply anti-discrimination laws to the ability to serve in the military (i.e., I can't recall a court ever ruling that citizens have a right to serve). Someone more versed in this area of law might educate me on this point.
I saw an article today on this. There was a court case the government lost 30 some years ago. They let into the army a gay man who had notified the recruiter and others of his orientation. Later someone decided to follow the rules of the time and discharge him. It went through the system and the court ruled because he had openly joined he must be allowed to continue his service.

I did not see that he was allowed to re-enlist or not. So it may be he was allowed only to complete his current enlistment, or allowed to continue his career. That is unknown to me.
 
I saw an article today on this. There was a court case the government lost 30 some years ago. They let into the army a gay man who had notified the recruiter and others of his orientation. Later someone decided to follow the rules of the time and discharge him. It went through the system and the court ruled because he had openly joined he must be allowed to continue his service.

I did not see that he was allowed to re-enlist or not. So it may be he was allowed only to complete his current enlistment, or allowed to continue his career. That is unknown to me.
As an addendum, that case only made it to the 9th circuit so not a great precedent. The man's name was Watkins for anyone wanting to look for it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT