Good point, & as discussed, it's a thought, a tyre kick if you will.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
I agree with you that President Trump is excellent at media manipulation, dominating the story line, and misdirection. All of his behavior serves to cleave his base closer to him - because once you've committed to saying 'yeah, that's not objectively true but...' you've tied yourself to whatever he decides.
The thing is, it hasn't really translated to any political accomplishments. His actions keep him personally popular (within his constituency) but have not created any dynamics to push forward his policies (or at least his stated policies). In fact, I'd argue his ineffectiveness is one of the things that's driving his success. If he actually got healthcare passed - and 15+ million of his followers lost healthcare, if he actually started the trade wars and protectionist policies he's talked about - and the modest economic growth continued from the Obama administration started to lag, if he got his tax cuts/budget passed - and the bottom line was a massive windfall for the rich and corporations with a concomitant drop in services and a function government? I think if any of those actually went through he would have to face their political consequences. Or, maybe not if everybody is focused on your tweets and obnoxious behavior.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I guess that SWCC sailor may have to change career plans....
Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people - CNNPolitics.com
Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people - CNNPolitics.com
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,836
When I read that the Military was going to be forced to pay for reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, the Trans folks lost my support.
Enlist as the sex you choose to be, fine. But don't think that once you are in, Uncle Sam should have to foot the bill to physically change you to the opposite sex.
I believe that they pushed this too far with the surgery requirement and that the ban would not have been reestablished had surgery not been part of it.
Edited: For grammar and phrasing
Last edited:
I feel similarly @Ooh-Rah - I think elective surgery, recovery, and administrative adjustments are not costs DoD should bear as a matter of policy - but I don't think that's the same as saying no one who identifies as transgender should be allowed to serve in any capacity.
I think this is a political move - and a smart one. It forces Democrats to be on the wrong side of working-class whites on cultural issues, since the Republicans are proving to be on the wrong side of them on healthcare. President Trump won this demographic handily, it helped propel him to victory, but traditional Republican policies hurt him with this group. This way he's pushed a winner for Republicans - cultural issues - to the forefront of the debate. We'll see how much any of this carries into the 2018 election cycle.
I think this is a political move - and a smart one. It forces Democrats to be on the wrong side of working-class whites on cultural issues, since the Republicans are proving to be on the wrong side of them on healthcare. President Trump won this demographic handily, it helped propel him to victory, but traditional Republican policies hurt him with this group. This way he's pushed a winner for Republicans - cultural issues - to the forefront of the debate. We'll see how much any of this carries into the 2018 election cycle.
So, anyone ever seen a President straight up belittle an Attorney General, on Twitter while both parties were in the same building?
I want to say its comical or some variation of that, but it's not. Mr. President, fucking quit it. Grow up. Do some work.
I want to say its comical or some variation of that, but it's not. Mr. President, fucking quit it. Grow up. Do some work.
Last edited:
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,248
I agree completely. I am all for them serving, and identifying however they want, but the surgeries are elective. No need for the government to be forced to pay for it.
Ditto. I still haven't been able to wrap my head around the fact that the government paid for a convicted criminal to under go therapy, aka Bradley/Chelsea Manning.
A study by the Rand corporation released last year puts the maximum cost for treatment of serving transgender service members at a little over $8 million. By comparison, the military spends about $84 million annually on ED meds. (Source: The Pentagon spends 5 times more on Viagra than transgender services)
The cost is a pittance and makes for a terrible argument.
The cost is a pittance and makes for a terrible argument.
Last edited:
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,248
I would agree, however think of what the military does at MEPS. The whole point is to disqualify people with pre-existing conditions that would hinder performance or lead to the military incurring the costs of your treatment. This is one of those conditions if you require the surgery, or if they are forced to perform it.
ED can be caused by TBI, PTSD, back and neck injuries, and many other things that are service related.
I get your point but I think it is misguided.
ETA: I think barring them from service is different than saying you won't pay for Surgery. Not paying for Surgery is fair IMO. Barring them from service is less so.
Last edited:
My point entirely, It's bread & circuses. I'm not too concerned with a tax cut (or more specifically a cut in the tax rate) as this can act as an economic stimulant and is to expected from a GOP president for as I've said before the GOP always do the God, flag & tax cuts for the rich routine. If services are privatised, this can also be economically sound as Thatcher demonstrated previously. I'm not up with the health care debate but I'm not aware of anything to replace the current one. But if none of this occurs...
When you ONLY look at the pennies involved in administering hormones and the ol' nip and tuck, then sure. It's when you start to factor in how long they will be nondeployable postoperative, assuming there are no complications arising from the surgery, as well as other issues, that the real cost becomes known.
Just because the postoperative troop is no longer gender dysphoric doesn't mean that he or she is also cured of other comorbid psychological issues (depression, etc). From a study documenting long-term follow up of postoperative trans people in Sweden (source found at the NIH.gov website), postoperative trans people are at a higher risk of suicide. That doesn't mean transsexualism is a disease; rather, it isn't an unfair assumption to make that they don't continue treatment for other issues that may continue to be present after gender reassignment.
In order to be deployable, that soldier has to be stable, and in good health. How many years of a four-year hitch could be spent nondeployable because of complications due to noncompliance with postoperative medical care? A definite answer can't be given, but odds are "too many" would suffice.
I've seen some genuine fuck-ups at various Army hospitals that I wouldn't let cut on an Oscar Meyer wiener, much less reroute the reproductive plumbing. Factor in the likelihood of the chain of command applying pressure to recoup and perform just like any other worthless broke dick that's malingering at a WTU, and medical noncompliance is virtually assured.
It's better that they transition either before enlistment or after ETS. I say this as someone who has served with, and supported, two different soldiers that elected to transition after ETS.
Plus, @TLDR20 made a good point about preexisting conditions at MEPS.
Philopalope
Unverified
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 22
I might've missed it from the few articles I read on the reinstatement of the No Transgenders policy but what does this mean for Active duty personnel? Are they just barring transgenders from enlisting or are they going to start discharging them from AD as well?
I was of the impression that those actively serving would have to exist in accordance with their chromosomes (XX/XY), not necessarily get kicked out
It should be noted this whole thing came as a total surprise to the Pentagon. Even if you agree with the policy - incredibly ineffective and fucked up way to implement it. Very likely the ultimate policy - which will take time to develop and implement - will look very different.
But, it's served its immediate purpose - we've stopped talking about the Healthcare debacle, the President attacking his own AG on twitter - when he's the dude's boss and could tell him to do the shit he's criticizing him for, and the Russia investigation that has the administration shitting their pants.
But, it's served its immediate purpose - we've stopped talking about the Healthcare debacle, the President attacking his own AG on twitter - when he's the dude's boss and could tell him to do the shit he's criticizing him for, and the Russia investigation that has the administration shitting their pants.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I tell you what, Trump certainly brought out of the closet every SJW friend I thought I didn't have with this decision.
Sadly, also lost in the shuffle was the arrest of the Florida Poodle's IT clerk, Imran Awan, at Dulles while trying to rejoin the rest of his family in Pakistan.
For those who may not know, he and his sons have been under investigation for ages with regards to data breaches and whatnot during the 2016 primaries. It's a big mess, complete with smashed computers recently seized by the FBI, and his boss (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) threatening the police unless they give it back.
But, y'know, Trump. A name almost as versatile as my favorite expletive.
For those who may not know, he and his sons have been under investigation for ages with regards to data breaches and whatnot during the 2016 primaries. It's a big mess, complete with smashed computers recently seized by the FBI, and his boss (Debbie Wasserman Schultz) threatening the police unless they give it back.
But, y'know, Trump. A name almost as versatile as my favorite expletive.
Philopalope
Unverified
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 22
I guess it just depends which stance you take. If a person is qualified to serve I don't think it's really that big of a deal to say go ahead and do it, but I can understand if people don't want the military funding their physical operations and hormone treatments. Especially if it's while they are AD which puts them out for recovery for an unspecified amount of time.
The big question which @racing_kitty sort of eluded to- the presidents decision says that trans can't serve in any capacity. It doesn't stop at 'if you're trans we aren't paying for the surgery'.
So the active duty trans folks, right now, surgery or not are in violation of that order. And since there hasn't been a follow on official statement- errr, tweet, there's no clarification.
I don't necessarily have an opinion on the trans issue per se, but I do have a pretty strong opinion about weak, ill-thought half baked orders put out to me (a military guy that this directly affects) via Twitter.
Wait, does that make me an SJW???
And today, in a far flung country in Africa, hundreds of women and children will die of a massacre, or poverty, or something. But yeah, some dude that sold data from Pakistan tried to go home. I guess it depends on what you care about in your news cycle.
So the active duty trans folks, right now, surgery or not are in violation of that order. And since there hasn't been a follow on official statement- errr, tweet, there's no clarification.
I don't necessarily have an opinion on the trans issue per se, but I do have a pretty strong opinion about weak, ill-thought half baked orders put out to me (a military guy that this directly affects) via Twitter.
Wait, does that make me an SJW???
And today, in a far flung country in Africa, hundreds of women and children will die of a massacre, or poverty, or something. But yeah, some dude that sold data from Pakistan tried to go home. I guess it depends on what you care about in your news cycle.
While he needed a new talking point in the media to cover up his shit, this will ultimately backfire on Trump and make him look weak. Congressional Republicans COULD see this as a chance to both expand their power relative to him, and recruit a more liberal younger base by just passing a law saying that transgender people can serve. "Hey we don't care what you identify as or do in your spare time. We just want to be fair to everyone and worry about much more important things to ensure the safety of our country and its citizens." Now, are they that smart? Unlikely...
- Status
