American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by photon

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you"

What tremendous medical costs?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump again on Twitter trying to force Sessions out. For a guy who most people under 40 only know because of "You're Fired", he sure is a pretty big ##### when it comes to firing people. Man up and do it oh orange one.

[MRCboicgy]

Possibly the real impetus behind this announcement.
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...02683721863168

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What tremendous medical costs?

The ones that Trump and his cronies are about to inflict on millions of Americans as soon as they can agree on an acceptable amount of evil. Pay attention now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Possibly the real impetus behind this announcement.
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...02683721863168

It does? It seems Trump just took ownership of the issue by initiating a ban on allowing transgendered people to serve. Seems this is an opportunity to stand up for all people and state you can serve your country regardless of who or what you are. If you can hold a rifle and evade the line of fire (straight or not) you are welcome to serve your country and defend our freedoms.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Possibly the real impetus behind this announcement.
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/st...02683721863168

I'm not sure how it changes anything. LGBTQ equality has been on the democrats platform already. And every year that passes more and more of the voting public agree with that platform.

I think democrats will fly the equality banner and they should be proud to do so. This is very much becoming a losing fight for republicans.

You have polls saying 70% of people support non-discrimination laws against the LGBTQ community so I'm not sure how putting a policy in place that discriminates against that community makes the other side "own" the issue. (not to mention polls that suggest a majority of young americans support insurance coverage for re-assignment).

That isn't to say there isn't a large chunk of voters that are terrified of "the gays" because there is. Sad but true. But the more the GOP panders to what is the minority of the voting public the more they will alienate the rest. I just don't see how a ideology built on discrimination and tax cuts to the wealthy is going to work out for them over the long term.

[MRCboicgy]

Considering one of the big failings of Hilary's campaign was connecting with the issues that mattered in swing states, if Democrats spend more time talking up trans rights than unemployment & the heroin crisis, they lose.

The Democrats are on our (LGBTQ+) side, we know that. They can't get lost in seeming disconnected from what matters to the broader electorate in those areas.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Considering one of the big failings of Hilary's campaign was connecting with the issues that mattered in swing states, if Democrats spend more time talking up trans rights than unemployment & the heroin crisis, they lose.

The Democrats are on our (LGBTQ+) side, we know that. They can't get lost in seeming disconnected from what matters to the broader electorate in those areas.

while i don't disagree with your premise, i think that the last elections, regardless of how the popular vote went, has created some introspection on the part of Democrats.

Their message wasn't clear. They didn't really know what their party stood for.

This is why they are going through that process of trying to rebrand their party... the GOP also did this introspection after losing to Obama a second time...interestingly enough, Trump came out of nowhere and was clearly not the 'brand' that the GOP leadership wanted.

"Change" candidates invariably have that going for them regardless of who is in office and what kind of job they did while in office. The Democrats might not even need a platform other than "We are not Trump" next cycle...

but going back to your OP, i think the Dems need to stick to guns in these swing states. And while it isn't necessarily a popular stance in those states, it is part of the bedrock that the Democratic party rests on. Sure, they could swing in the wind like the GOP, but that would be a very cynical way to try winning votes.

Certainly, they can tweak their message based on individual states and their specific issues, but Hillary didn't have a really clear message unlike Bernie, or even Trump...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

The ones that Trump and his cronies are about to inflict on millions of Americans as soon as they can agree on an acceptable amount of evil. Pay attention now.

No, but seriously, outside of sarcastic answers, I'm totally confused about what that statement means. Why would transgender people require additional medical expense while they're serving in the military? What incremental medical costs are associated with being trans?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Considering one of the big failings of Hilary's campaign was connecting with the issues that mattered in swing states, if Democrats spend more time talking up trans rights than unemployment & the heroin crisis, they lose.

The Democrats are on our (LGBTQ+) side, we know that. They can't get lost in seeming disconnected from what matters to the broader electorate in those areas.

But the only way they should be forced to "own" the issue is if they decide to talk about it constantly without prompting or if the republican challenger is also forced to talk about the issue all the time which doesn't hurt the Dems. So yes the Dems could shoot themselves in the foot but this move by Trump doesn't make them "own" the issue.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, but seriously, outside of sarcastic answers, I'm totally confused about what that statement means. Why would transgender people require additional medical expense while they're serving in the military? What incremental medical costs are associated with being trans?

i wonder if its a case where those TG folks would be undergoing the surgery to make that transformation and that the military's insurance would be expected to cover the costs of that surgery?

presumably, all full time military receives full health insurance from the US gov't

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, but seriously, outside of sarcastic answers, I'm totally confused about what that statement means. Why would transgender people require additional medical expense while they're serving in the military? What incremental medical costs are associated with being trans?

There are costs associated with the installation of a new 20mm cannon and two grenades where a bomb bay used to be, or removal of that 20mm cannon and grenades and installation of a bomb bay and addition of twin hardened bunkers in a northern location. And don't forget the hormone treatments!

[MRCboicgy]

Fake news says:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politi...der/index.html
The study put the number of transgender people in the military between 1,320 and 6,630. Gender-change surgery is rare in the general population, and the RAND study estimated the possibility of 30 to 140 new hormone treatments a year in the military, with 25 to 130 gender transition-related surgeries among active service members. The cost could range from $2.4 million and $8.4 million, an amount that would represent an "exceedingly small proportion" of total health care expenditures, the study found.

[puffnstuff]

But the cost of prescribed Viagra is still covered, right?

[photon]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

But the cost of prescribed Viagra is still covered, right?

Military spent $41 million on viagra, $22 million on Cialis. $8.4 million on transgender services.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Military spent $41 million on viagra, $22 million on Cialis. $8.4 million on transgender services.

Seriously???

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by photon

Military spent $41 million on viagra, $22 million on Cialis. $8.4 million on transgender services.

"hard-fought battle" indeed...

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by New Era

Seriously???

You want limp dick Generals running the show?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

You want limp dick Generals running the show?

Why not. We have a limp dick cheeto as the supreme commander.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

Gohmert, King, and Rohrabacher. The holy triumvirate of stupid.

You forgot Lamar Smith.