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.

 

Military readiness my foot... What is Trumps real reason???

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I don't know why trump has decided to drop his no transgenders in the military policy position, but it sure as hell isnt military readiness...



He didn't drop this position already did he? The group he respects the most, the military brass, requested it.


Ding ding ding......you win the prize!!
The OP and his Leftist friends think that Trump made this decision all by himself....so therefore start another Trump bashing thread.
I am sure this is a request for a policy change direct from the Generals and Admirals that comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I couldn't care less either way but they are acting like there are 10s of thousands of transgenders looking to join up.
I am sure the number is closer to 100-200 but probably less.
Blah blah Trump did this or that bitch bitch bitch.




posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Just another way some people would use to fund their transition. I suspect there are mental issues during the hormone therapy? What about the cost of retrofitting bases to accommodate them? I for one don't want my military tax dollars spent that way.

I wouldn't want to trust my back to someone who's torn between two sexual identities. There's enough stress on the battlefield. Units need to be cohesive.

Maybe give them their own base/units. Segregate them? They could do well fighting together.

Beat me up, call me names, but I can see the reasoning and for the most part I'm on board. I have a coworker that's TG and she's cool but I wouldn't want to trust her in a firefight. (Sorry Madge).



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

Oh no I know this isn't trumps position.. hence the "why is he really doing it???"



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RazorV66

Oh no I know this isn't trumps position.. hence the "why is he really doing it???"



Nothing as nefarious as the drivel you guys are dreaming up.
Like Carewemust says, what the military brass wants, the brass gets.
Trump is taking the Leftist heat to protect his Generals and Admirals.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If someone is willing to pick up a gun and defend my a$$, I am not going to quibble about their plumbing. I'll just say "thank you" and be grateful.

End of story.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Shrug, maybe he does.... However, I think it's rather naive to think governmental "leaders" do anything without political motivation; as to whether it's partisan or special interest originated is a conclusion an individual is left to decide because we almost never know with any degree of certainty.
edit on 26-7-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I just don't make the emotional argument almost ever..

It's subjective and varies for everyone ..

Efficiency is all that matters. Espeacially In terms of military action.


What percent of the population is lgbt?? 10 % maybe...

Now how many of the worlds best military leases and such fall in one of those categories???

Way more than 10%..

From Alexander to modern times there have been oodles of great warriors and strategists who were nuts in their personal lives.

Like I said absolutes are always bad...

In combat you judge people by their abilities not who they are off the field.


If a trans person can't pull their weight you boot them.. if they can you let them make you stronger..

That seems like easy math to me... the rest is just politics.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

You guys keep speculating and blaming people and groups for your theories when it's already being reported why this happened.




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 those of moderate Republicans who considered the proposal blatantly discriminatory.
Link


It's always the MONEY, Lebowski. The MONEY!!! That's what makes all politicians do anything.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Still fair to speculate since it was done so haphazardly.. if it was just about funding they do a way more orcastrated roll out.

This seems to be out of desperation..



The in the middle republicans are saying it is to distract about sessions.

He wants sessions gone, but is facing a revolt from the GOP establishment if he fired him..



I'm not disagreeing with your point at all, just that that might not be the whole story.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm sure he'll use it for whatever he can, but I don't think just a distraction is enough. Nor do I think Trump is really planning and thinking enough to use a distraction like this. Besides it's pissing off a lot of other people and isn't going to work out well for him in the end.

Also, you can't point to any republicans for answers because they don't want it to look bad on them either. If it gets shown that they are the reason for it, it will not go over well either.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The answer is as broad as the question in the the thread title. The Trump administration wants the same thing as every other first term administration, a second term.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I don't think he runs again...

I figure he has climbed that mountain already and pissed of 60+% of the population ATLEAST....SO FAR!!!

Lol



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Does anyone have a solid count...or really good estimate at how many transgendered individuals are serving at this time?

To be honest, I would think it's less than 1% of all the military...So I'm not really sure how that will affect our military readiness if they are pulled off the line.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I don't think he runs again...

I figure he has climbed that mountain already and pissed of 60+% of the population ATLEAST....SO FAR!!!

Lol


Population wasn't what got him elected though was it. If anything stops him from running at all I would think it more likely to be age/health related.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: JoshuaCox

www.militarytimes.com...

41% of active duty servicemen said Obama's policy change allowing transgenders into service hurt the military, 12% said it helped, and the rest cited no change. That's why this IS about military readiness. 41% of our troops didn't like the change at all and, when paired with the 47% that didn't care one way or the other about the policy change, you've got 88% of the troops who will be happy with Trump's decision against 12% who won't be. Numbers win everytime.


Don't forget the hidden number too. A few friends of mine that work in the Government as Civilian employees, have had to take special classes on dealing with transgender people. Each course costs tax payers money, and even though they only had t take a full day course you have to times that buy every employee and Military personal to start to see that it's a waste to resources to deal with self identifying transgender people. Look if a person wants to fight for their country that's great, I don't care if they're transgender, no gender, or whatever gender. I do care when a military persons feelings gets hurt because they got called sir, mama, whatever, then special classes have to be given so that one (yes one) group of people can feel special because they can't deal with how they are born.

It's like the gay thing back in the 90's. Nobody really cares if the other person they're serving with is gay or not. What they do care about is having to wait time because a small group of people feel like they need to feel special. That's where the trouble starts. These transgender people have served in the service before (just look at that navy SEAL that came out), and nobody cared what they were, as long as they did their job without making an issue. Now though we have to waste time, money, and troop moral on these people.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Trump proclaimed this through a fricken tweet. Not through the WH's normal communication channels. A tweet.

In short, this tweet was meant as nothing more than a distraction from his woes. Only time will show how long it lasts.


You seem to think the President "has" to communicate to the people using the "normal" channels. Why can't the Prez just tell people what he thinks straight up? Why do you think it has to be mediated through the "normal" channels? What's wrong with the fireside chats?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

They don't want to pay for the TS surgery.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: amazing

No you can win a battle without the 4 Bs...

Both Hannibal and Napoleon lost their wars and were arguably the best tacticians in history..

And why did they lose their wars??

You can throw nazi Germany in the mix as well... tactics won at first.. then the 4 Bs kicked them in the throat.

They lost the ability to produce the 4 Bs...

You just made my point better than I did really.

PS I am the biggest damn Hannibal fan on the planet lol.. I get a little buzz just thinking about him..


Good points. I just think in the case of Napolean, he was done in by his wanting to fit in with European royalty causing him to make tactical errors in who he confided in and in the case of Hanibal it wasn't lack of resources but him having to return to the home city to fend off a Roman invasion. So better tactics? Take the persian invasions of Greece. I don't think they lacked boots, beans bandages or bodies, they had for more, but superior tactics did them in. The legend of the 300 and of Marathon are but two examples of not just incredible warriors but superior tactics when you look at the whole picture.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Exactly. It's about the money. It's always about the money.




In order to boost that funding, public funding of surgeries for transgender service members would be removed from a defense spending bill that would fulfill the president’s promises to increase military spending and construct that wall. Conservative Republicans and national defense “hawks” had been focusing on the costs of surgeries as the House tinkered with the bill, and Trump made his decision in order to make sure the bill would move forward, Politico reported, citing White House and congressional sources.
www.newsweek.com...


They refuse to spend a single cent on anyone or anything other than what they want.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

No one asked if the military wants or even needs them.

There is no such thing as a right to serve.

Does anyone even care what the military wants?

I dont find an issue with them, but absolutely understand why they may be denied.

Its not insane. Its common sense.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join