Donald Trump and US politics

Personally, I don't see transgender operation/hormone therapy as a medical treatment. It would be like having a breast implant (for the sake of making them bigger), a penis enlargement or a rhino-plastic surgery to me.

I don't think a person undergoing hormone treatment should be in the army either (police force and security guard either). Actually, someone going through hormone treatment shouldn't even be allowed to own a gun until the treatment is over. The numbers don't lie, people going under those treatment are exceptionally vulnerable and shouldn't be in situation of extreme stress.

That said, once the treatment is over (and the person proves to be emotionally stable), they should be allowed to join the groups I mentioned earlier without discrimination.


I wonder where it puts me on the spectrum.

"

faerwin wrote:

I wonder where it puts me on the spectrum.

On the political alignment tests of yesteryear, right on social issues was conservative and left on social issues was liberal. This simply isn't the case anymore, as idea space to the left of liberal on social issues has emerged from the fringes, gained mainstream popularity, and has been normalized by leftist political institutions. In other words, there has been a massive swing into the previously unsettled far left.

Thus:

Social rightwing: Majority and/or traditionalist identity groups should be shown preferential treatment under law as is due the rightful owners of Western civilization, while minority and/or historically underperforming identity groups should be opposed by law/force as is due such threats to social order.

Social leftwing: Minority and/or historically underperforming identity groups should be shown preferential treatment under law as reparations for past and present persecution, while majority and/or traditionalist identity groups should be opposed by law/force as is due such threats to social justice.

Social centrist: Identity groups should generally receive neither preferential treatment nor opposition from the government; identity is rarely (if ever) a factor that should be relevant to blindfolded Justice.

Under this new spectrum, the concept "liberal" no longer properly connotes the left, but instead the center (with substantial numbers of liberals migrating from leftwing to rightwing political institutions), while the concept "left" now mostly refers to progressivism, not liberalism. Still, out of old habit, "liberal" is still often erroneously used as a synonym for "leftist," especially among social conservatives who look down on everything left of center.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Mooch is like Trump if Trump really gave zero fucks (Trump gives around two and a half fucks because he's President).

"

I got the sense that Scaramucci’s campaign against leakers flows from his intense loyalty to Trump. Unlike other Trump advisers, I’ve never heard him say a bad word about the President. “What I want to do is I want to fucking kill all the leakers and I want to get the President’s agenda on track so we can succeed for the American people,” he told me.
He cryptically suggested that he had more information about White House aides. “O.K., the Mooch showed up a week ago,” he said. “This is going to get cleaned up very shortly, O.K.? Because I nailed these guys. I’ve got digital fingerprints on everything they’ve done through the F.B.I. and the fucking Department of Justice.”

That's The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza about a phone call he had with Mooch. Wew lad.

Another money quote:

"

“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)

My sides.

I like this guy already.

Skinny repeal failed because of McCain. The salt is real.



"I don't like people who get brain cancer."

-Trump, tomorrow, probably

I don't usually watch InfoWars. But when I do, it's because I know what he's going to yell about, and I suspect I'll agree with him.

"

morbo wrote:

to cater to a specific sexuality group of confused people

It´s not about money. It´s about hate as presented here.

"

ImmaPokemon wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-exclusive-idUSKBN1AC2FN?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

From the article (Gen Joe Dunsford)
"Even if this were an order, implementing it legally would take considerable time, if it's even possible."

Note that from what I posted yesterday, no implementation is even needed. The policy to allow had not been in place.

I like how Reuters quotes Gen Joe Dunsford, when Gen Joe Dunsford took this position April 2016:

"Growing concern that top U.S. military leaders are increasingly being asked to comment on proposals by presidential candidates has led the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draft a letter to all troops with one message: Stay out of politics.

Gen. Joseph Dunford is expected to issue a note to all military forces as soon as this week.
Dunford will "remind the troops of the need to remain apolitical in order to sustain Americans' trust and confidence in them," said the chairman's spokesman, Capt. Gregory Hicks."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/joseph-dunford-joint-chiefs-chairman-politics/index.html

So either what the general said was apolitical (and hence a "nothing burger") or the general violated his own policy.

So which was it? The article itself states: "His message neither voiced support nor opposition to Trump's decision." IOW - the headline "alarms some military officers" fails to list a single officer claiming alarm. Just more FAKE NEWS.

As for the implementation that this general claims might not even be possible? As I said, it is already in place, it hadn't changed yet. What does the article itself say? "The Defense Department had been expected to begin formally allowing transgender people to enlist this year. But Mattis on June 30 approved a six-month delay to allow for a review."

IOW - It is still in place. No change needed, no implementation needed. Under Obama, it was supposed to go into effect July 1 2017, but on June 30 2017 Mattis changed that to Jan 2018.

From what I have seen Joe Dunsford doesn't have a lot of support from the troops. It's probably time to replace him with someone more attuned to the military nature of the military.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

to cater to a specific sexuality group of confused people

It´s not about money. It´s about hate as presented here.

What hate? the us military has clear guidelines in their recruitment policies thats like saying they hate schizo's or ppl whit depression or flat feet or to tall/short ppl etc.
The fact of the matter is these ppl should never have been allowed to join in the first place.
On that subject why aren't you ppl virtue signalling for tall ppl are you tall phobic or short phobic or bad teeth phobic,were is the outrage for those ppl.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/27/anthony-scaramucci-white-house-reince-priebus-steve-bannon

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-priebus-idUSKBN1AC2L4

Oh I fucking love this guy.

Hm, this is an interesting quote.

"

"We all serve at the pleasure of the president and if it gets to a place where that isn't the place, he'll let you know," Sanders told reporters.

Any wonder they're turning on each other like rats. 'Serve at the pleasure of the president'. Yeah, that sounds like some really healthy modern-era government right there.

I've not seen what the latest dispute with Bannon is about, but he does have a strong will, and although you are entitled to an opinion when serving a CEO/POTUS, you have to know when to let go of a topic and move on. Not because you aren't right, but because you aren't the one elected (or designated by the board of directors). I suspect this is more the case than any substantive difference.

As for Priebus - he has been suspect for a long time. The way the media like to sow dissent, and the way Trump is willing to change people out whenever necessary, it is difficult to discern what is actually happening and why.

Lots of speculating from people on the sidelines, but that is all it is, without reliable info.

Generalizations are fucking stupid when it's the capability of individuals that you're interested in. Set the bar as high as you want, if people pass they pass and if they don't they don't.

Anything else is just guilt by association.