Trump won't allow transgender individuals "to serve in the military

[goldenequity]

Transgender former elite Navy Seal challenges Donald Trump: 'Tell me to my face I'm not worthy'

[VIDEODROME]

I don't know why anybody even wants to enlist at this point if we're mired in conflict with endless mission creep.

[dannno]

I don't know why anybody even wants to enlist at this point if we're mired in conflict with endless mission creep.

/thread

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't know why anybody even wants to enlist at this point if we're mired in conflict with endless mission creep.

I answer questions on Yahoo Answers. There is a military sub-forum. Most of the high schoolers and people a little older are simply looking for a job. The same applies to college graduates in basket weaving (or today's "gender" studies). Some are bored with college. Some are trying to escape a bad family situation.

Most grasp for reasons beyond these because they want to appear selfless. You'll hear vague abstractions like I want to be something bigger than myself or I want to serve my country.


If you want to look, then here's the forum: https://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index/...?sid=396545449




Edit: And not to get off track, but I even made a thread about me answering questions on Yahoo Answers. I give liberty advice regarding these questions:

Should I join the military?
Should I become a cop?
Do I have to talk to CPS?
How can I find a drug user not guilty when doing jury duty?
Should I call the cops on [family member] for using weed?
How can I fight a red light camera ticket?
Do I have to answer questions at an interior border patrol roadblock?
Etc, etc.

Here's the thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ining-cops-etc

[angelatc]

For once Trump's on the right side of an issue (though probably for the wrong reasons, i.e. red meat politics reasons). If the taxpayer is going to have to finance the military, it should be as effective as possible, and the presence of transgenders (or gays or women, while we're on the topic) undermines military effectiveness. Nor is excluding anyone from the military a violation of their rights; one has no right to a job, including a government job. That said, the policy roll-out (via Twitter, to the surprise of the DoD), is a typically Trumpian cluster$#@!, which helps put this sound policy in a worse light.

Seriously, as someone said on Facebook....we aren't supposed to have a standing army anyway. Ban everybody!

But those same arguments were used when blacks and women were excluded. Sort of weakens the argument.

[dannno]

Seriously, as someone said on Facebook....we aren't supposed to have a standing army anyway. Ban everybody!

But those same arguments were used when blacks and women were excluded. Sort of weakens the argument.

Women shouldn't be in combat roles, but I don't think there should be a rule against women or gays or trans, everybody should follow the same rules. Women shouldn't be in combat roles because the physical requirements should be too high for almost any woman to pass.

The reason they make rules about gays and such in the military is because if they don't, then they will get harassed out. So they make anti-harassment laws to protect gays, among others.

$#@! a bunch of harassment laws in the military, if you can't take harassment you shouldn't be in the military.

[RJB]

Trannies should be allowed to terrorize the Middle East like everyone else.

[dannno]

Seriously, as someone said on Facebook....we aren't supposed to have a standing army anyway. Ban everybody!

But those same arguments were used when blacks and women were excluded. Sort of weakens the argument.

I've been trying to figure out lately why women in particular fight so hard for gay and trans people to be able to come out and be 'themselves'.

Is it possible that part of the reason is that before, a lot of gay and trans men had to hide their true identity and so they would get married to a woman and the woman would find out that her husband was $#@!ing some dude or dressing up like a woman, and so to quell their fear of this happening to them they want men to be able to be open about it so they know who not to $#@! or be in a relationship with?

I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of reasons, I'm just trying to find some underlying reason that would actually explain this from a strategic mating pov.

[Anti Federalist]

Good...about had enough of paying for the weirdosexual's perversions.

[Swordsmyth]

This also baits the Demoncrats back to promoting perversion, they were trying to pivot to "A Better Deal".

[VIDEODROME]

I've been trying to figure out lately why women in particular fight so hard for gay and trans people to be able to come out and be 'themselves'.
.

Probably because they themselves were excluded and it's just from sympathy?

[ILUVRP]

i wonder if trump will still take their tax money to fund the military .

my guess is there are more transgender people in the military than there are neocons serving .

[VIDEODROME]

[r3volution 3.0]

we aren't supposed to have a standing army anyway

Same issue with a militia.

But those same arguments were used when blacks and women were excluded. Sort of weakens the argument.

Those arguments were right with respect to women.

Putting men and women in close quarters (say, in a submarine) for extended periods of time is going to cause problems, and it has.

You could have an all male army or an all female army (except there aren't enough women who fit the physical criteria), but it shouldn't be co-ed.

[XNavyNuke]

Putting men and women in close quarters (say, in a submarine) for extended periods of time is going to cause problems, and it has.

And still that policy hasn't been rescinded.

Today's announcement doesn't represent Trump abandonment of the LGBTI community, as illustrated by two Department of State 12-month funding opportunities released over the past 48 hrs totaling over $15M tax dollars to address gender violence in Vietnam and the People's Democratic Republik of the Congo. Money is still flowing to QRST pet projects around the world. Today's announcement was an easy pat on the head to the base and poke in the eye to media wonks. Don't look at the tweets, following the money.

IMO

XNN

[Pauls' Revere]

It's how Trump controls the narrative and the MSM. The secret is he will attack targets that his base is indifferent about or hates.

1. Make ambiguous comment about liberal sacred cow
2. Media and public are instantly enamored by shocking headline
3. People stop thinking about yesterday's headline
4. ?????
5. profit

#4) Move real agenda forward.

[AuH20]

#4) Move real agenda forward.

with border funding. Trump isn't stupid.

[oyarde]

Why would taxpayers want to fund the mentally ill ?

[lilymc]

Why would taxpayers want to fund the mentally ill ?

Because many taxpayers have been brainwashed in this upside-down world we're living in.

[Zippyjuan]

In Trumps defense, the thousands of Ms Doubtfires all lined up to serve in the military would create quite the.... oh wait... what? Like 10 of them in the U.S. wants to join? Oh, well... umm...so yeah.... this is a $#@!ing stupid tweet aimed at getting *****s even more worked up.

Never mind carry on.

Edit: The Q- word that rhymes with "deers" is censored here? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/numbe...ry?id=48869563

The 2016 Rand study, titled "Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly," estimates that between 1,320 and 6,630 of 1.3 million active duty service members may be transgender.

A mid-range estimate states that 2,450 active duty service members and 1,510 members in the U.S. reserves may be transgender, according to the study.

[Zippyjuan]

In his tweet, Trump said he consulted with his "Generals". The military was not informed of his plan.

http://www.wyff4.com/article/us-join...r-ban/10370025

US Joint Chiefs blindsided by Trump's transgender ban

<snip>

But while Trump's tweet states that he consulted with his generals and military experts ahead of making the announcement, US defense officials have indicated that many of the top brass were caught off guard by the policy change.

One of the heads of the military branches was informed by a staffer of the President's tweets on transgender policy and had no idea it was coming, the official said.

Adding to the confusion is that Trump's decision came without a plan in place to implement it.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not have an answer Wednesday on what would happen to active transgender military members but said the White House and the Defense Department would work together "as implementation takes place and is done so lawfully."

But how those next steps would play out still remains unclear.

The Pentagon has asked the White House for a written directive spelling out its intentions and directions on transgender policy so the military can now begin implementing guidance, according to a defense official with direct knowledge.

A main issue now is whether currently serving members will be discharged and whether they will receive an honorable discharge so they can continue to receive whatever medical and retiree benefits they are entitled to based on their years of service, a defense official said.

A memo from the Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there will be "no modifications" to current policy until there is further guidance.

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," it reads.

[Champ]

I don't know why anybody even wants to enlist at this point if we're mired in conflict with endless mission creep.

This is all that really needs to be said on a liberty based forum. The only way to make this even better would be to ban all men and women from serving in the US nation building and empire expanding military.

[jllundqu]

Does anyone care about this? I don't. This was a political red-meat-grenade thrown to distract the unwashed masses. Who gives a $#@!?

[Anti Federalist]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/numbe...ry?id=48869563

A mid-range estimate states that 2,450 active duty service members and 1,510 members in the U.S. reserves may be transgender, according to the study.

And that comes out to about ten, in the great grand scheme of things, just like Wooden Indian said.

Or put another way: statistically insignificant.

.2 percent ( I rounded up to give you the benefit of doubt)

[Anti Federalist]

Does anyone care about this? I don't. This was a political red-meat-grenade thrown to distract the unwashed masses. Who gives a $#@!?

I'll admit that this issue doesn't keep me up at night, but it's a small positive pushback.

I'll take it.

[TheCount]

#4) Move real agenda forward.

This has never successfully occurred. Trump gets so caught up in his distractions that he doesn't manage to accomplish anything.

[dannno]

In his tweet, Trump said he consulted with his "Generals". The military was not informed of his plan.

http://www.wyff4.com/article/us-join...r-ban/10370025

We all appreciate the fake news.

[dannno]

This has never successfully occurred. Trump gets so caught up in his distractions that he doesn't manage to accomplish anything.

....according to CNN fake news

[phill4paul]

I admit I haven't been keeping up on this. From what I understand the reasoning is that it is because the process for the surgery takes them out of from being combat ready. So, I guess my question is why is it OK to throw women into the meat grinder. From what I understand many of these women become pregnant. Does this not take them out of being combat ready and require 'special' medical procedures over the male norm? They also get up to 6 weeks maternity leave and if in the Navy or Marines up to 16 weeks. Males only get 10 days. So why aren't women being excluded also?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2534873.html

[nikcers]