Once again Trump makes the right decision. Transgender cannot serve in military

[Seawytch]

.
The Big Orange Idiot is finding himself sinking deeper and deeper into the sh!t pile of his administration’s corruption.

ban has conservatives smiling from ear to ear, and has given them back that same gleeful spring in their step they get when congress votes to steal healthcare from tens-of-millions of their fellow Americans.

However, the conservatives’ denial of Big Orange’s collusion can only go so far. This ban enacted by the Big Orange Idiot will act as shot in the arm to rekindle the conservatives overwhelming hate for those who are not white conservative Christians. But its effects are only temporary.

Happily, Mueller’s investigation will soon have the conservatives entertaining everyone else, as they resume vehemently denying reality again, and proclaiming the innocence of Big Orange and his crooked cronies.

Trump's Cruel Military Ban On Transgender People Is An Attempt To Save His Base

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 140743 View attachment 140744

More truth and reality for conservatives to deny.

As a veteran...they do not belong in military.

As a military retiree, I disagree. We have an all volunteer military. If you want to serve and can meet the standards, you should be allowed to serve. Upwards of 5,000 are serving now. How can you say they don't belong?

It's a mental illness, so yes they are disqualified. Good job Trump keeping your promises.

Actual mental health professionals disagree with anonymous internet guy. Color me surprised.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Hilarious...even the liberal rubes here are all talking about this non-issue no one really cares about instead of the failed healthcare replacement.
Trump does it again.
You guys are so easy.

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To all of you dumb fucks who want to keep trans people who are physically, mentally, and intellectually qualified out of the military -try wrapping your small minds around this:

Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service

Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to health, physical appearance and educational background, according to the Pentagon.

The ineligible typically includes those who are obese, those who lack a high school diploma or a GED, convicted felons, those taking prescription drugs for ADHD and those with certain tattoos and ear gauges, the Wall Street Journal reports, though some requirements can be waived.

Only 1% of young people are both "eligible and inclined to have conversation with" the military about possible service, according to the Defense Department

.

Now do you still want to talk about the ability of the military to fight and what will impair that ability vs. some made up bullshit about "distractions"?

 

[miketx]

Looks like Trump duped all you lib homosexuals into voting for him! That's what I call the art of the deal!

 

[BULLDOG]

The mission of the United States Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff, at the behest of Congress or the President. Ideally, they kill people and break stuff at the same time (e.g., destroy a truck with enemy soldiers inside). That’s basically what they exist for. Everything else (e.g., “peacekeeping”) is ancillary.


Any time a new initiative is proposed for the Armed Forces, it must be evaluated as to whether it makes them better at killing people and/or breaking stuff. If it doesn’t, then it must have other tangible, definite benefits, or it should not be implemented.


These principles apply to every new initiative – a new weapons system, a new plane, a new command structure, a new personnel policy. Whatever.


Consider, “Women in Combat.” Let’s see…only about one woman in a thousand has the physical ability to perform as well as a man in physically demanding tasks in an oppressive enviroment, and very few of them (outstanding female athletes) would have any interest. Of those who might have an interest, there has to be a “boot camp” regime to weed out those who simply can’t cut it, which eliminates most of that select group, and at the end of THAT process, we might have a few women who, on their best day, are equal to their least able male counterpart. So we have a tremendous cost for no benefit. Further, the question arises whether it’s a good idea to have men and women serving in combat circumstances (not), and whether we are willing to risk the “challenges” that would arise should one of these combat women be captured and “abused” by an enemy, particularly in front of a camera. Would the commander feel compelled to take extraordinary (stupid) measures to secure her return? Probably.


Clearly, Women in Combat is a very bad idea. A waste of resources for no benefit in our ability to kill people and/or break stuff.


What about transgender humans serving in the Armed Forces? Does it make us any better at killing people and breaking stuff? Let’s see…it's a huge and possibly costly distraction, with no tangible or intangible benefit.


Not a difficult choice, really.


Our most recent Democrat President liked to use the Military Services as a laboratory where he could try out ill-advised social experiments under “controlled” circumstances. Soldiers know this, which is one reason why they viewed him with contempt. One of many reasons.


Trump is a narcissistic idiot, but thank God we have him.

It's important to hear all sides of an issue, so thank you for presenting your thoughts. Now, perhaps we can hear from someone who is sane, and not a misogynistic pig.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Pentagon asked for this change.

Trump's tweets took the Pentagon by surprise.

Maybe they were surprised we actually have a President now that will do the right thing regardless of the scrutiny. But Trump probably figures F it. If not this, they will find something else to bust my balls about.

The problem is bigger than attacking transgender servicemen. There is a Commander-in-Chief who is a mentally unbalanced, unpredictable, divisive, disruptive, and just plain weird conman. What repercussions this could have on the cohesion of the US armed forces is difficult to foresee. Furthermore, demoralized members of the military such as transgender front line combatants in war zones like the Middle East can put personnel and the United States at risk.

How could they be more at risk because they're not fighting next to a sissy in a slip?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jon_berzerk]

Approximately 71% of the 34 million 17-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to health, physical appearance and educational background, according to the Pentagon

yeah thanks to the liberal school system

which has gone down hill for years

all the more reasons to drain the swamp

thanks for pointing out the failed liberal agenda

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays are not that fond of 'transgenders.'

transgenders are not even gay

Bruce Jenner is trans and not gay. He still likes women. Only now he's a lesbian with a penis!

So he is not gay, but she is gay.

None of you know what the fuck you're talking about

say you --LOL -fuck you leftard -

Thank you for admitting that it is those of us on the "left" who actually give some thought to these complex subjects and who are given to intellectual inquiry, critical thinking and compassion vs. moronic sniping which seem to be all that you and your ilk can do.

 

[PredFan]

Trump is right on this one. This is one of the many reasons he was put in office. We needed him to reverse 0bama's stupid policies. This is one of the most stupid.

 

[TNHarley]

Why the Transgender Troop Ban May Backfire Politically

Before Wednesday was over, President Trump’s ban on transgender troops already looked like a political miscalculation.

Report: Effort To Allow Transgenders In The Military Faces ‘Indefinite Delay’

Former President Barack Obama’s directive was issued in June 2016 and gave the services exactly one year to craft policy implementation.

What is next for liberals to champion, Transanimals, where humans who want to be dogs, cats or horses, will be allowed to join the K-9 units with the 4 legged creatures, or Mounted cavalry, where the person on all 4s is ridden like a horse? The blame rests on the liberal parents who instead of acting like the adults in the room and telling little Johnny, that he is a boy, and little Debbie, that she is a girl, the children come up to the adults, demanding that the children are other than what they really are, and the liberals, instead of facing a difficult decision, just allows the child to be whatever they want. So when a child wants to be a dog, will the liberal tell the child,
a. No you are not a dog, because you are a human and will always be a human, denying their child their TRUE identity.
b. Here is your can of dog food, you are such a precious snowflake.


Transgender Suicide Rate Isn’t Due To Discrimination

This is not a surprise: “transgender” individuals have an alarmingly high suicide rate, somewhere north of 40 percent by some reliable estimates.

Individuals who believe they are a different sex than that of their biology are psychologically ill—self-evidently so—and one would quite reasonably expect a higher suicide rate from a portion of the population that suffers from so significant a mental illness (particularly a mental illness it is fashionable to indulge rather than treat).

Only you could fuck this up. You suck
I am glad this happened, but you are fucking retarded.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The mission of the United States Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff, at the behest of Congress or the President. Ideally, they kill people and break stuff at the same time (e.g., destroy a truck with enemy soldiers inside). That’s basically what they exist for. Everything else (e.g., “peacekeeping”) is ancillary.


Any time a new initiative is proposed for the Armed Forces, it must be evaluated as to whether it makes them better at killing people and/or breaking stuff. If it doesn’t, then it must have other tangible, definite benefits, or it should not be implemented.


These principles apply to every new initiative – a new weapons system, a new plane, a new command structure, a new personnel policy. Whatever.


Consider, “Women in Combat.” Let’s see…only about one woman in a thousand has the physical ability to perform as well as a man in physically demanding tasks in an oppressive enviroment, and very few of them (outstanding female athletes) would have any interest. Of those who might have an interest, there has to be a “boot camp” regime to weed out those who simply can’t cut it, which eliminates most of that select group, and at the end of THAT process, we might have a few women who, on their best day, are equal to their least able male counterpart. So we have a tremendous cost for no benefit. Further, the question arises whether it’s a good idea to have men and women serving in combat circumstances (not), and whether we are willing to risk the “challenges” that would arise should one of these combat women be captured and “abused” by an enemy, particularly in front of a camera. Would the commander feel compelled to take extraordinary (stupid) measures to secure her return? Probably.


Clearly, Women in Combat is a very bad idea. A waste of resources for no benefit in our ability to kill people and/or break stuff.


What about transgender humans serving in the Armed Forces? Does it make us any better at killing people and breaking stuff? Let’s see…it's a huge and possibly costly distraction, with no tangible or intangible benefit.


Not a difficult choice, really.


Our most recent Democrat President liked to use the Military Services as a laboratory where he could try out ill-advised social experiments under “controlled” circumstances. Soldiers know this, which is one reason why they viewed him with contempt. One of many reasons.


Trump is a narcissistic idiot, but thank God we have him.

I agree with Trump when it come to Transgender people serving in the Military...

Now would I be deny if I were still young and signed up in a Kilt !?!

 

[mdk]

Andaronjim is the William F. Buckley of USMB.

 

[miketx]

The mission of the United States Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff, at the behest of Congress or the President. Ideally, they kill people and break stuff at the same time (e.g., destroy a truck with enemy soldiers inside). That’s basically what they exist for. Everything else (e.g., “peacekeeping”) is ancillary.


Any time a new initiative is proposed for the Armed Forces, it must be evaluated as to whether it makes them better at killing people and/or breaking stuff. If it doesn’t, then it must have other tangible, definite benefits, or it should not be implemented.


These principles apply to every new initiative – a new weapons system, a new plane, a new command structure, a new personnel policy. Whatever.


Consider, “Women in Combat.” Let’s see…only about one woman in a thousand has the physical ability to perform as well as a man in physically demanding tasks in an oppressive enviroment, and very few of them (outstanding female athletes) would have any interest. Of those who might have an interest, there has to be a “boot camp” regime to weed out those who simply can’t cut it, which eliminates most of that select group, and at the end of THAT process, we might have a few women who, on their best day, are equal to their least able male counterpart. So we have a tremendous cost for no benefit. Further, the question arises whether it’s a good idea to have men and women serving in combat circumstances (not), and whether we are willing to risk the “challenges” that would arise should one of these combat women be captured and “abused” by an enemy, particularly in front of a camera. Would the commander feel compelled to take extraordinary (stupid) measures to secure her return? Probably.


Clearly, Women in Combat is a very bad idea. A waste of resources for no benefit in our ability to kill people and/or break stuff.


What about transgender humans serving in the Armed Forces? Does it make us any better at killing people and breaking stuff? Let’s see…it's a huge and possibly costly distraction, with no tangible or intangible benefit.


Not a difficult choice, really.


Our most recent Democrat President liked to use the Military Services as a laboratory where he could try out ill-advised social experiments under “controlled” circumstances. Soldiers know this, which is one reason why they viewed him with contempt. One of many reasons.


Trump is a narcissistic idiot, but thank God we have him.

It's important to hear all sides of an issue, so thank you for presenting your thoughts. Now, perhaps we can hear from someone who is sane, and not a misogynistic pig.

Ok, women and gays and trannies and any other GLQTBFHJEIWYSKXJKXK have no place in the military.

You'll have to find some other way to pay for your sick medical "needs".

 

[jon_berzerk]

transgenders are not even gay

Bruce Jenner is trans and not gay. He still likes women. Only now he's a lesbian with a penis!

So he is not gay, but she is gay.

None of you know what the fuck you're talking about

say you --LOL -fuck you leftard -

Thank you for admitting that it is those of us on the "left" who actually give some thought to these complex subjects and who are given to intellectual inquiry, critical thinking and compassion vs. moronic sniping which seem to be all that you and your ilk can do.

your post illustrates the democrats to a T

keep em fat

keep em stupid

keep on the government tit

keep em voting democrat

--LOL

 

[JoeMoma]

Why are there such large numbers of trangender soiders (if you beleive the numbers being tossed around) in the military. Is it because they are seeing the military as a means to pay for their sex changes? Do liberals want this to be the new GI Bill, join the military and Uncle Sam (or perhaps aunt Samantha) will pay for your sex change?

 

[BULLDOG]

The mission of the United States Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff, at the behest of Congress or the President. Ideally, they kill people and break stuff at the same time (e.g., destroy a truck with enemy soldiers inside). That’s basically what they exist for. Everything else (e.g., “peacekeeping”) is ancillary.


Any time a new initiative is proposed for the Armed Forces, it must be evaluated as to whether it makes them better at killing people and/or breaking stuff. If it doesn’t, then it must have other tangible, definite benefits, or it should not be implemented.


These principles apply to every new initiative – a new weapons system, a new plane, a new command structure, a new personnel policy. Whatever.


Consider, “Women in Combat.” Let’s see…only about one woman in a thousand has the physical ability to perform as well as a man in physically demanding tasks in an oppressive enviroment, and very few of them (outstanding female athletes) would have any interest. Of those who might have an interest, there has to be a “boot camp” regime to weed out those who simply can’t cut it, which eliminates most of that select group, and at the end of THAT process, we might have a few women who, on their best day, are equal to their least able male counterpart. So we have a tremendous cost for no benefit. Further, the question arises whether it’s a good idea to have men and women serving in combat circumstances (not), and whether we are willing to risk the “challenges” that would arise should one of these combat women be captured and “abused” by an enemy, particularly in front of a camera. Would the commander feel compelled to take extraordinary (stupid) measures to secure her return? Probably.


Clearly, Women in Combat is a very bad idea. A waste of resources for no benefit in our ability to kill people and/or break stuff.


What about transgender humans serving in the Armed Forces? Does it make us any better at killing people and breaking stuff? Let’s see…it's a huge and possibly costly distraction, with no tangible or intangible benefit.


Not a difficult choice, really.


Our most recent Democrat President liked to use the Military Services as a laboratory where he could try out ill-advised social experiments under “controlled” circumstances. Soldiers know this, which is one reason why they viewed him with contempt. One of many reasons.


Trump is a narcissistic idiot, but thank God we have him.

It's important to hear all sides of an issue, so thank you for presenting your thoughts. Now, perhaps we can hear from someone who is sane, and not a misogynistic pig.

Ok, women and gays and trannies and any other GLQTBFHJEIWYSKXJKXK have no place in the military.

You'll have to find some other way to pay for your sick medical "needs".

Thank you. Now we have heard the dick suckers point of view. Anybody else?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Pentagon asked for this change.

Trump's tweets took the Pentagon by surprise.

Maybe they were surprised we actually have a President now that will do the right thing regardless of the scrutiny. But Trump probably figures F it. If not this, they will find something else to bust my balls about.

The problem is bigger than attacking transgender servicemen. There is a Commander-in-Chief who is a mentally unbalanced, unpredictable, divisive, disruptive, and just plain weird conman. What repercussions this could have on the cohesion of the US armed forces is difficult to foresee. Furthermore, demoralized members of the military such as transgender front line combatants in war zones like the Middle East can put personnel and the United States at risk.

How could they be more at risk because they're not fighting next to a sissy in a slip?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You seem to know a lot about trans people. How is that?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Exact same policy Obama had almost his entire Presidency,

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Andaronjim is the William F. Buckley of USMB.

Why thank you, for the compliment...