It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Tweets NO Transgender in Military

page: 52
78
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting




Are you from the UK?.


No I'm not, though I am in the commonwealth.




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Huh? Do you know what "implied" means?


Yes I do. How do you know what Trump implied?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Any of these?.

www.cbc.ca...



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Yes.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Huh? Do you know what "implied" means?


Yes I do. How do you know what Trump implied?

Trump - "Can we ban transgender people from the military?" Generals - "Sure." Trump - "Ok I'll tweet that".
Later
Generals - "Nope we do not support the ban."



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

So you make it up?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

A surgery for a transition to mtf or ftm is in no way beneficial to the military or even necessary to begin with. Btw look up dialation procedure for the transision from man to female. Now imagine a trans soldier in a war zone with that "problem".


A transgender would make an excellent soldier.

Just think of it. Being born a male has certain advantages, like stronger muscles and bones, making for a more hardy soldier. But, being a woman has other advantages, like being able to infiltrate ISIS undercover as a sex doll for all those sexually deprived militants. So, with a transgender soldier, you get the best of both advantages, can can send in your covert operatives right behind enemy lines, without them even suspecting a thing.



Except one of the effects of the medication used is that you lose muscle strength. So, your larger frame (from having bigger bones) gives you a physical advantage over women thanks to weight and leverage, but you've not got the strength of a man.

If anything, you're even more disadvantaged as a soldier because you've to haul around more bone mass (from being born male) but with less muscle strength (due to the medication) available to do it. That's before you even start thinking about the military equipment you have to carry.

Oddly enough, a lot of the research has come out due to athletes transitioning MtF, not military considerations. It's quite a good analogy though and is quite instructive as a response to your post.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien

So you make it up?

Oh you're like Les? A literalist?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien

So you make it up?

Oh you're like Les? A literalist?


Like what? I'm a man. Perhaps you can give me some evidence that supports any of these statements:

Trump - "Can we ban transgender people from the military?" Generals - "Sure." Trump - "Ok I'll tweet that".
Later
Generals - "Nope we do not support the ban."



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien

So you make it up?

Oh you're like Les? A literalist?


Like what? I'm a man. Perhaps you can give me some evidence that supports any of these statements:

Trump - "Can we ban transgender people from the military?" Generals - "Sure." Trump - "Ok I'll tweet that".
Later
Generals - "Nope we do not support the ban."

You are too literal to understand that that was a scenario to present to you so that you understand how little sense it makes.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




You are too literal to understand that that was a scenario to present to you so that you understand how little sense it makes.


Or maybe you're too metaphorical to notice you're giving me imagined scenario to support your claim of what he implied.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

No. I am just explaining to you how it doesn't make sense. First they're ok with it. Now they're not ok with it. Why the about-face?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




No. I am just explaining to you how it doesn't make sense. First they're ok with it. Now they're not ok with it. Why the about-face?


As I mentioned earlier, Trump never stated whether they were ok with it or not. Do you have any evidence that suggests either?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien




No. I am just explaining to you how it doesn't make sense. First they're ok with it. Now they're not ok with it. Why the about-face?


As I mentioned earlier, Trump never stated whether they were ok with it or not. Do you have any evidence that suggests either?


After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien




You are too literal to understand that that was a scenario to present to you so that you understand how little sense it makes.


Or maybe you're too metaphorical to notice you're giving me imagined scenario to support your claim of what he implied.



After consultation with my Generals and military experts,


So nothing should be implied from this statement whatsoever?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Squawk squawk ... lol



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It says he consulted them but not what their response was. How can you suggest there is an about face? Is there evidence that said they do not approve, before or after? I don't see any and I could be wrong.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Squawk squawk ... lol


Cluck cluck.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire




So nothing should be implied from this statement whatsoever?


Imply all you want, because that's all you have.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Deaf Alien

It says he consulted them but not what their response was. How can you suggest there is an about face? Is there evidence that said they do not approve, before or after? I don't see any and I could be wrong.

Then he could have worded it carefully so there will be no apparent implication.
He could have said either:
"I consulted with the generals and they said they were for it."
or
"I consulted with the generals but they said no so I will do it anyway."




top topics



 
78
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join