|
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. |
On July 27 2017 03:12 Reaps wrote: What a absolutely terrifying tweet. Just fan service for his evangelical base. The absolute worse response is getting your panties up in a bunch over it. He isn't Jerry Falwell. The embodied sentiment is a fairly mainstream conservative position.
|
On July 27 2017 04:29 Danglars wrote:Just fan service for his evangelical base. The absolute worse response is getting your panties up in a bunch over it. He isn't Jerry Falwell. The embodied sentiment is a fairly mainstream conservative position. I don't see any panties bunching.
|
I don't know the specifics but I'm curious if someone knows more. Could someone who is currently diagnosed with gender dysphoria even enter into service? I know several things preclude you from joining the military, such as being on antidepressants or ADHD medications, having certain chronic illnesses like asthma or sleep apnea. If you are already in the military and diagnosed afterwards then tricare treats for these things I believe.
It is all a bit confusing. If the military can preclude people based on chronic illnesses with the idea being that people with these chronic issues can't be deployed until their issues are resolved, and since they are chronic they wont be. Can they preclude people who are deemed to need costly gender reassignment procedures? I'm assuming that would be a denial as well. If someone is going to need hormone therapy and the like how is that different from other chronic things. Of course this doesn't even apply to all trans persons so a blanket ban doesnt make sense there either. And in any case announcing sweeping DoD policy changes through twitter is just stupid.
|
On July 27 2017 04:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +After a week sparring with his attorney general and steaming over the Russia investigation consuming his agenda, President Donald Trump was closing in on an important win.
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.
Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.
The president had always planned to scale back President Barack Obama-era policies welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trump’s decision.
Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and moderate Republicans who felt the proposal was blatantly discriminatory.
“There are several members of the conference who feel this really needs to be addressed,” said senior House Appropriations Committee member Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) on Tuesday. “This isn’t about the transgender issue; it’s about the taxpayer dollars going to pay for the surgery out of the defense budget."
That’s why House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.
“[P]lease be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.
"This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” said one senior House Republican aide. The source said that while GOP leaders asked the White House for help, they weren't expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump's far-reaching directive.
While Democrats and centrist Republicans are already blasting the move, one White House official said the decision would be "seen as common-sense" by millions — though likely vociferously protested by others.
"It's not the worst thing in the world to have this fight," the administration official said.
The announcement, multiple sources said, did not sit well with Mattis, who appeared to be trying to avoid the matter in recent weeks. Congressional sources say Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), the original author of the House’s transgender proposal, tried numerous times to phone Mattis to discuss the transgender issue. Source
So Trump took a far more substantive position and turned it into a caricature of itself because of his complete lack of understanding of an issue, potentially destroying the reasonable position? Shocking.
On July 27 2017 04:33 Kickstart wrote: I don't know the specifics but I'm curious if someone knows more. Could someone who is currently diagnosed with gender dysphoria even enter into service? I know several things preclude you from joining the military, such as being on antidepressants or ADHD medications, having certain chronic illnesses like asthma or sleep apnea. If you are already in the military and diagnosed afterwards then tricare treats for these things I believe.
It is all a bit confusing. If the military can preclude people based on chronic illnesses with the idea being that people with these chronic issues can't be deployed until their issues are resolved, and since they are chronic they wont be. Can they preclude people who are deemed to need costly gender reassignment procedures? I'm assuming that would be a denial as well. If someone is going to need hormone therapy and the like how is that different from other chronic things. Of course this doesn't even apply to all trans persons so a blanket ban doesnt make sense there either. And in any case announcing sweeping DoD policy changes through twitter is just stupid.
Yes, there were specific Obama-era protections and protocols in place for individuals both in and out of combat to enlist. I suspect in part because they realized trying to screen out body dysphoria was basically impossible (kind of like deciding if people are Muslims at airports) and there was no evidence of a systematic problem of people enlisting purely to reassign (of course, evidence doesn't matter to the GOP). And the original GOP agenda was focused totally on surgery costs. But if we believe this non-DOD tweet it now doesn't matter if you're post-assignment or never intend to have reassignment, you're fired and can't be hired.
|
Questions have once again been raised over US President Donald Trump’s grasp on foreign policy after he appeared to misunderstand the role played by Lebanese militant organisation Hezbollah in the Middle East’s complex geopolitics.
During a news conference with Lebanese President Saad al-Hariri in the White House’s Rose Garden on Tuesday, Mr Trump was asked about his position on the Shia group.
“The prime minister and I have just concluded an extensive conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing Lebanon and its neighbours,” Trump said. Hezbollah was a “menace” from within to the Lebanese people and the region, Mr Trump added.
“Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against Isis, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The Lebanese people, of all faiths, are working together to keep - and you know this, and we've been discussing this at great length - their country safe and prosperous.”
While the US has condemned Hezbollah as a terrorist group, and Congress is considering stepping up sanctions, its political wing is the most powerful entity in Lebanon’s deeply divided coalition government.
www.yahoo.com
|
|
|
My favorite part about this is how he goes "We worked on this for 27 hours"
I work on projects for work 100+ easily, and that shits not healthcare for americans.
|
Well, repeal and delay is dead in the Senate (5 no votes from R's). All that seems to be left is "skinny repeal" which is policy gibberish that's nearly Trumpian, so it will probably pass.
|
I can't say I understand the strategy behind this Vote-A-Rama. It's just a string of failures, all of which are making headlines lol.
|
On July 27 2017 05:05 TheTenthDoc wrote: Well, repeal and delay is dead in the Senate (5 no votes from R's). All that seems to be left is "skinny repeal" which is policy gibberish that's nearly Trumpian, so it will probably pass. People are saying the skinny repeal might make it through, but it might just die too. I think McCain might be a hard no on all of these bills and he moved for debate because he knew he could kill them all.
|
On July 27 2017 05:07 Doodsmack wrote: I can't say I understand the strategy behind this Vote-A-Rama. It's just a string of failures, all of which are making headlines lol. It's just to show constituents that they are working on it but some aren't onboard with anything they are trying to do.
|
Manafort is involved in plenty of New York real estate deals. So are Russian money launderers he associates with.
|
On July 27 2017 05:07 Doodsmack wrote: I can't say I understand the strategy behind this Vote-A-Rama. It's just a string of failures, all of which are making headlines lol. I'd imagine it's one of those between a rock and a hard place scenarios; if they don't have a vote, they'll get hammered on it, after all they've been talking about it forever. It's better for them really to make a vote, have it fail, then be blamed for failing, but they can try to pass the buck and blame the republicans who voted no, without being liable for the actual consequences of a successful yes vote.
|
Trumps just taking his party back to their roots. Nothing to see here. Though ofc this is going to play horribly politically and that is why many Republicans didn't want this. But since when has Trump cared about what his party mates wanted?
|
maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all? Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever
|
The trans ban was 100% gaslighting. There was no effort to turn it into policy. Mueller must be getting close to something good.
|
Well there are the reports that he did this so he could get funding for his wall from hawk Rs
|
On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote: maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all? Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three.
Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills.
|
On July 27 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote: maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all? Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three. Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills.
At this point, I'm not putting any eggs into the McCain basket.
|
|
|
|