Trump: No Trannys in My Army!
- Thread starter CommuterBob
- Start date
Remember when he said stuff like this during the campaign?
"After consultation with my Generals and military experts"
I have to say, 100% of my military friends agree.
I have to say, 100% of my military friends agree.
Last edited:
After the Bradley/Chelsea Manning debacle, people just don't want to have taxpayers on the hook for hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of expensive gender reassignment surgeries every year.
That might be part of it, but Trump is saying no to even those already post-op.
Seems to be Trumps running gag...pass ownership of all actions or promises onto other people. So incase it falls apart he can point the finger at them.
When I'm in the trenches or on the line, and I need someone for cover or to save me, I can assure you that IDGAF what the gender or gender-identity is of the person or people that are there to help me.
I know the standard WC response would be something along the lines of "yes and your wife/mother thanked me for getting less hair in her mouth", so if that's what the 8 year old inside of you wants to see; then there you go.
While I don't want US tax dollars to go towards paying for trans-surgeries, they shouldn't be barred from service. Pre-op, post op, who cares.
If they have the courage to possibly lose there life in service, they should be allowed.
If they have the courage to possibly lose there life in service, they should be allowed.
I mean okay...but for the people already serving and the ones that are already post-op, living their lives as the gender they choose...what does this accomplish?
What negative effect can it have on the military? A grown ass man/woman doesn't like Trans people so it "distracts" them?
You should be concerned about their strength, endurance, etc. The average woman, man on estrogen, woman on testosterone will always be weaker than average men. It's science.
Your troll attempt notwithstanding, I've been in enough situations to know that it's not the size of the dog in the fight.....
Seriously, that's the f'ing problem right there; people nowadays are all fuccked up in the head. Sorry, but that's not something anyone should be able to "choose." Just deal with the hand you were dealt, how freakin' difficult is that?
WTF are you all afraid of? TG people are such an infinitely small percentage of the population. Why are you so concerned? Do you think that suddenly your children are going to one day wake up and "like, be all trans"? That's not how it works. Then again, you people are the same ones that think homosexuality is a choice. And, hypothetically, let's say it is all a "choice" (I think @bqknight unintentionally used the wrong word), who gives a flying f*ck? Does it directly impact you? Does it lessen your existence? Live and let live ffs.
Counterpoint: what the hell does it matter to you how these people live their lives? I don't give a flying fuk what someone wants to do, and if they are willing to sign up for the shitstorm that is our military then good on them. That is more than 99% of people on this board have done for their country.
Until an actual study is done that shows how much more $ per person a transgender costs the military, and it is compared to other groups (women, for example, have much higher costs and whenever one of them gets pregnant that is certainly a "disruption") this is just thinly disguised bigotry and nothing else.
On the contrary, there is the problem right there. It's not like it's a decision that people take lightly. As you are not transgender, you will probably never understand it, just like I will never fully understand it. Luckily, we live in a time where people can choose to do what makes them feel right and happy and have the medical ability to do so.
Yeah it is. My step brother had a bullmastiff and a maltese. Guess which one was killed by the other...
so now trans people dont have to go into the draft or die in pointless wars, and somehow people are upset about this. lol
actual science is hard for the left to understand. you have to speak in psuedo science and feelings
Trannies are mentally ill. Probably not a good idea to give them a gun and put into highly stressful situations.
An actual study was done, but not in comparison to women.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...duals-from-serving-in-u-s-military-1501075174
"A report commissioned by the Pentagon on the effects of allowing transgender individuals to serve openly, released in May 2016, found that policy shift would have little to no impact and negligible costs on military cohesion or readiness. The study, conducted by the Rand Corp., found that between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender individuals serve on active duty, amounting to about 0.05% of the total U.S. active force. The study pegged the likely estimate at 2,450.
The report estimated that few of those service members would require treatment or surgery and concluded that the cost of implementing the policy would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million a year. "
We all saw what Jame Gumb did to those girls - and what he almost did to Agent Starling.
Gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy should be felonies with harsh sentences. It's down right cruel to perpetuate and encourage these things.
I guess on some level it makes sense, Trump is a draft dodging little bitch so he's just trying to help other people get out as well.
As much as I appreciate the attention you are giving my "peepee" with multiple posts about it, I am just not interested. Flattered for sure but maybe you will have more luck pursuing @bqknight
anything to reverse the failure of multiculturalism. the military is for fighting not sharing cultures and understanding your genre. only white people get it. Thank you Trump. MAGA
It looks like this decision was made to save the funding for the border wall. It certainly caught the Pentagon by surprise.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990
"House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.
But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.
They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether."
"This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990
"House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.
But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.
They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether."
"This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,”
I question the President's claim that the generals called for this. Take McCain's disclosure, for instance ...
- http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/congress-reaction-transgender-military-policy/index.html
Even Shelby from Alabama said this ...
I'm the Libertarian who said "we'll see" to every 'Progressive' who said Trump was a right-winger. After all, Trump typically had 'New York Values' that were far, far more Liberal than Hillary Clinton's -- who regularly got 'beat up' in the New York media for such in 2000+. So far, Trump-Sessions seems to be at odds with Trump's own history, and that's just sad.
But even that all aside ...
Did the military brass really call for this?
Or is this Trump trying to 'drum up support' with such low ratings?
I'm starting to think it's the latter.
Trump, who wasn't a politician until January 2017, has become one of the 'best' of them ... and the worst type of leader, possibly more so than the 'lip service' that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton used to pull with regularity.
E.g., Bill Clinton signing Kyoto, but not even bothering to get a single Democratic Senator to vote for it (shot down 0-98). Barack Obama signing Paris, but not even bothering to send it to Congress, to prevent his party from being lambasted like they were after Kyoto.
Trump is the biggest example of why you don't put a Reality TV star in the White House, even if the US media so badly wants those ratings. I honestly don't think he even bothered asking the military brass. And that's the main problem, not so much the policy.
- http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/congress-reaction-transgender-military-policy/index.html
"The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving," the Arizona Republican said in a statement. "There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military -- regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so -- and should be treated as the patriots they are."
Even Shelby from Alabama said this ...
"You ought to treat everybody fairly and give everybody a chance to serve. You have to remember our military force is a volunteer force."
I'm the Libertarian who said "we'll see" to every 'Progressive' who said Trump was a right-winger. After all, Trump typically had 'New York Values' that were far, far more Liberal than Hillary Clinton's -- who regularly got 'beat up' in the New York media for such in 2000+. So far, Trump-Sessions seems to be at odds with Trump's own history, and that's just sad.
But even that all aside ...
Did the military brass really call for this?
Or is this Trump trying to 'drum up support' with such low ratings?
I'm starting to think it's the latter.
Trump, who wasn't a politician until January 2017, has become one of the 'best' of them ... and the worst type of leader, possibly more so than the 'lip service' that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton used to pull with regularity.
E.g., Bill Clinton signing Kyoto, but not even bothering to get a single Democratic Senator to vote for it (shot down 0-98). Barack Obama signing Paris, but not even bothering to send it to Congress, to prevent his party from being lambasted like they were after Kyoto.
Trump is the biggest example of why you don't put a Reality TV star in the White House, even if the US media so badly wants those ratings. I honestly don't think he even bothered asking the military brass. And that's the main problem, not so much the policy.
I have serious doubts the "generals" called for this. The joint chiefs and military in general don't like to dabble in politics and avoid the political game at all costs especially when it comes to social issues.
Especially when they commissioned a 6-month study into the matter less than a month ago. I highly doubt they made up their minds before the results of the study.
Latest posts
-
-
OT: War in Israel, anti Israeli protests across college campuses- Latest: San Diego Knight
-
-
-
