EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8199
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42782 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2017 00:26 Logo wrote: I don't know about many but it looks bad for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to keep and IT person on staff that was barred from working with the IT systems while under investigation and then have that person get arrested trying to leave the country. But yeah it seems unlikely to be anything more than someone trying to score some extra cash for themselves. It sounds like she should have known he was under investigation. But I wonder if this was just an issue of them waiting until he was arrested before dropping the hammer, therefore avoid the wrongful termination money grab lawsuit. But let’s be serious, it is far more likely that DWS is a clown and kept him on payroll because Florida is a nightmare state that elects nightmare humans. | ||
|
Yurie
11854 Posts
On July 27 2017 00:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/890200008372473856 This amount represents an exceedingly small proportion of active- component health care expenditures (0.038–0.134 percent of approximately $6 billion in spending in FY 2014) and overall DoD health care expenditures (0.005–0.017 percent of $49.3 billion in actual expenditures for the FY 2014 Unified Medical Program). None of the foreign militaries examined reported a negative impact on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force. So their conclusion is that it a non-issue. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:21 Yurie wrote: So their conclusion is that it a non-issue. So then which generals are telling him this? | ||
|
Yurie
11854 Posts
Trump? Whichever one he dreamed about last night. Or a more serious response. Whoever has a personal agenda regarding the issue and wants to sugar coat it in half truths or outright lies to get it through. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
i'd assume the general he ordered to tell him that. or noone at all and he's just lying. that said, there are a fair number of conservative people in the military, I woulnd't be surprised if some general is willing to say somethin glike that in private (in public of course it could jeopardize their career). there's an awful lot of people at general rank, so finding one woulnd't really be hard. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:21 Yurie wrote: So their conclusion is that it a non-issue. even if it is an issue you just ban taxpayer funding for reassignment surgery (which is a separate argument) you don't ban all trans people from the military. That's just dumb without really good evidence that it would accomplish anything. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
But at the end of the day, I would say if they really want to go through the process, wait until you get out. It's only 3-4 years if you manage a honorable discharge. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
REVIEW & OUTLOOK Trump’s Sessions Abuse Donald Trump won’t let even success intrude on his presidential ego, so naturally he couldn’t let the Senate’s health-care victory stand as the story of Tuesday. Instead he continued to demean Jeff Sessions, and in the process he is harming himself, alienating allies, and crossing dangerous legal and political lines. For a week President Trump has waged an unseemly campaign against his own Attorney General, telling the New York Times he wished he’d never hired him, unleashing a tweet storm that has accused Mr. Sessions of being “beleaguered” and “weak.” Mr. Trump is clearly frustrated that the Russia collusion story is engulfing his own family. But that frustration has now taken a darker turn. This humiliation campaign is clearly aimed at forcing a Sessions resignation. Any Cabinet appointee serves at a President’s pleasure, but the deeply troubling aspect of this exercise is Mr. Trump’s hardly veiled intention: the commencement of a criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton by the Department of Justice and the firing of special prosecutor Robert Mueller. On Tuesday morning Mr. Trump tweeted that Mr. Sessions “has taken a very weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes. ” This might play well with the red-meat crowd in Mr. Trump’s Twitterverse, but Sen. Lindsey Graham was explicit and correct in describing the legal line Mr. Trump had crossed. “Prosecutorial decisions should be based on applying facts to the law without hint of political motivation,” Sen. Graham said. “To do otherwise is to run away from the long-standing American tradition of separating the law from politics regardless of party.” Republican Sen. Thom Tillis also came to Mr. Sessions’ defense, citing his “unwavering commitment to the rule of law,” and Sen. Richard Shelby called him “a man of integrity.” We will put the problem more bluntly. Mr. Trump’s suggestion that his Attorney General prosecute his defeated opponent is the kind of crude political retribution one expects in Erdogan’s Turkey or Duterte’s Philippines. Mr. Sessions had no way of knowing when he accepted the AG job that the Russia probe would become the firestorm it has, or that his belated memory of brief, public meetings with the Russian ambassador in 2016 would require his recusal from supervising the probe. He was right to step back once the facts were out, not the least to shelter the Trump Administration from any suspicion of a politicized investigation. If Mr. Trump wants someone to blame for the existence of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, he can pick up a mirror. That open-ended probe is the direct result of Mr. Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey months into his Russia investigation and then tweet that Mr. Comey should hope there are no Oval Office tapes of their meeting. That threat forced Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. As a candidate, Mr. Trump thought he could say anything and get away with it, and most often he did. A sitting President is not a one-man show. He needs allies in politics and allies to govern. Mr. Trump’s treatment of Jeff Sessions makes clear that he will desert both at peril to his Presidency. No matter how powerful the office of the Presidency, it needs department leaders to execute policy. If by firing or forcing out Jeff Sessions Mr. Trump makes clear that his highest priority is executing personal political desires or whims, he will invite resignations from his first-rate Cabinet and only political hacks will stand in to replace them. And forget about Senate confirmation of his next AG. Even on the day that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was scraping together enough Republican votes to avoid a humiliating defeat for the President on health care, Mr. Trump was causing Senators to publicly align themselves with Mr. Sessions. Past some point of political erosion, Mr. Trump’s legislative agenda will become impossible to accomplish. Mr. Trump prides himself as a man above political convention, but there are some conventions he can’t ignore without destroying his Presidency. Source I mentioned to someone yesterday that the WSJ is no Fox News and is closer to Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan than Hannity in its relationship with him. I thought the article independently brought up some interesting points as well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote: It honestly feels like he is hoping this creates more outrage than the Russia scandal and that by shifting outrage, it will somehow prevent his family from going to prison. I highly doubt any of them are going to prison. It will end with them being run out of town and dealing with eternal shame. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I'm seeing a theme in McCain's stances since his return. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:43 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/tamarakeithnpr/status/890238584917241857 I'm seeing a theme in McCain's stances since his return. What? Disappointed statements then do nothing. That is McCain 101. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: What? Disappointed statements then do nothing. That is McCain 101. He voted down the one of the three nightmare bills. His master plan seems to be kill these bills in open debate so they are truly dead. It isn't a perfect plan, but I guess it is better than leaving all the bills in the pre-debate stage where can limp along until October. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18006 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I know a girl (now a guy) who served with me in the Marines. Lesbian all the way through. When she got out, she went through the process. She/He is still awesome and I wouldn't have trouble fighting alongside her/him. If she/he had done it while in, I can see a fuss being brought up. People in the military know this is going on. They don't care. All they care about is if you can do your job. That's it. But at the end of the day, I would say if they really want to go through the process, wait until you get out. It's only 3-4 years if you manage a honorable discharge. If you want to make a career out of it and renew your contract, it's more than 3-4 years... Granted, I don't know how feasible that is in the US army, but presumably you could make your way up the ranks of NCO, and that will take longer than 3-4 years... | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:37 mozoku wrote: Source I mentioned to someone yesterday that the WSJ is no Fox News and is closer to Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan than Hannity in its relationship with him. I thought the article independently brought up some interesting points as well. These twitter attacks must have been Sessions wet dream. He was highly questioned and doubted in his motivations and intentions. And now, that it looked like he was going down with the ship he himself prepped to sail, suddenly his captain is firing away at him, and he finds support along all kinds of fronts, from the left and from the right, everyone talks about his integrity and he is basically martyring himself in his position. A few years from now he can probably look back and say that those tweets were the ebst thing that could ever happen in this situation, as they allow him to somehow escape the Trump association, which seemed impossible given his early strong support of Trump. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
1. The liberal outrage machine is jumping all over the trans military ban, forgetting what they should really be outraged about. 2. Trump plays the pied piper to his base who have a bizarre fantasy that trans people in the military is an actual real problem. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On July 27 2017 01:55 Acrofales wrote: If you want to make a career out of it and renew your contract, it's more than 3-4 years... Granted, I don't know how feasible that is in the US army, but presumably you could make your way up the ranks of NCO, and that will take longer than 3-4 years... Of course a career isn't made in 3-4 years. I made NCO in 3 years. You can feasibly make SNCO if you play the game. It's relative to one's merits as they progress. But if you want to just get the healthcare and option to have the process, 3-4 years is long enough. | ||
| ||
