Trump Bans Transgender Military Recruits

[Tibs]

Obama wanted our military to be weak and limpwristed, just like him.

 

[Stryker]

Here's a Coastie from my buddy's wedding:

 

[oneforthebus]

sounds like the POTUS for the last 8 years.
only less polished, more abrasive and less pigmentation, but with a much hotter wife and worse hair.

You're not going to get an argument from me on the fact that Obama was just as bad if not worse. Just in different ways.

 

[blitzburghv5]

As I said, the precedent set by the election was far more important than anything Trump will ever do in office. That is secondary to me. The establishment had to be rejected. Truthfully, I'm not even sure if he will be a good President but I'm keeping an open mind. His lack of filter doesn't bother me honestly because it should come as no surprise to absolutely anyone. That's what people voted for and what people knew they were getting. Hell, that was his whole campaign. It's not like he put on some phony act leading up to the election like he was some smooth talking, politically correct gentlemen. That is what a political phony would have done. Put on an act to get in office and talk like they are going to make everyone in America happy when people know it's all bullshit.

But as was stated, Trump has no filter, true. But hes still a liar and a bigger bullshitter than most politicians in Washington. Hes just trashy in how he conducts himself and his business. Many like him just cause he talks ****. Hes reality TV, mixed with WWE and Andrew Dice Clay. WITH POWER.

 

[blitzburghv5]

Obama wanted our military to be weak and limpwristed, just like him.

lmao....GODDAMN !!! REALLY ?? Tinfoil mutherfucker....TIN. FOIL.

Allow me to collect myself....ahem....now, provide proof.....give me something....anything that supports this BS statement. Or, are you just "Trumpin" ?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

lmao....GODDAMN !!! REALLY ?? Tinfoil mutherfucker....TIN. FOIL.

Allow me to collect myself....ahem....now, provide proof.....give me something....anything that supports this BS statement. Or, are you just "Trumpin" ?

Destroying funding for our military.

Pulling out of Iraq way too early.

Allowing transgenders into the military.

Then there's only a thousand articles out there that detail how he fared militarily.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ver-here-s-how-the-military-rates-his-legacy/

His moves to slim down the armed forces, move away from traditional military might and overhaul social policies prohibiting the service of minority groups have proven divisive in the ranks. His critics have accused him of trading a strong security posture for political points, and for allowing the rise of terrorists like the Islamic State group whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to silence.

More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military. About 36 percent said they approve of his job as commander in chief.

Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)

Obama's cuts leave every military branch weaker than on 9/11

Ted Cruz says Barack Obama 'dramatically degraded our military'

"Barack Obama right now, No. 1, over seven years, has dramatically degraded our military. You know, just two weeks ago was the 25th anniversary of the first Persian Gulf war," the Texas senator said. "When that war began, we had 8,000 planes. Today, we have about 4,000. When that war began, we had 529 ships. Today, we have 272."

Under Obama, Our Military’s Strength Has Significantly Decreased

While “resetting” with Russia and “engaging” with Iran, Obama has presided over a tremendous down-sizing of U.S. military strength. The Army’s manpower is down 10 percent since President Obama took office. Our naval capabilities are aging and inadequate to meet our national security demands. The Air Force fields the smallest and oldest force of combat aircraft in its history. The Marines are running only about two-thirds the number of battalions they have historically needed to meet day-to-day operational demands.

Most neglected of all U.S. national security elements are our strategic forces. Here, President Obama has reined in development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The president cut all advanced missile defense programs designed to keep the United States ahead of the ballistic missile threat in the future. The president also delayed and underfunded existing programs, most notably the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. Meanwhile, to curry favor with Russia, he pulled the plug on planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, simultaneously alienating those allies while displaying weakness to Moscow.

The facts are all there. You can search for the rest.

To argue that it was NOT Obama's goal to weaken our military is asinine and you'd stand on the opposite side of historical fact.

 

[IndySteel]

This is good...

Nobody has a "right" to serve in the Military. Nobody.

What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? Very far from it.

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short.

Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. Poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identify as a Unicorn?

Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of pushups?

Not really a "morning person" and refuse to get out of bed before noon?
All can be reasons for denial.

The Military has one job. War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability.
Did someone just scream "That isn't Fair"? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

YOU change yourself to meet Military standards. Not the other way around.
I say again: You don't change the Military... you must change yourself.
The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars.

If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality... Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who's next in line?

 

[IndySteel]

Tinfoil mutherfucker....TIN. FOIL.

Yes, yes he is. Rage much?

 

[Spike]

Retired generals, admirals thank Trump for banning transgender troops

More than a dozen retired generals and admirals have signed a letter to President Trump thanking him for his announced policy to ban transgender people from the armed forces.

“We write today to express our gratitude to you for making the extremely courageous decision to reverse President [Barack] Obama’s transgender social experiment,” the conservative retired flag officers wrote. “There may be an enormous amount of vitriol directed at you for making this policy correction, but please know that overturning this policy may have done more in the long-term to save the culture and war-fighting capacity of the U.S. military than perhaps any other military policy you will adopt as president.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/retired-generals-admirals-thank-president-trump-fo/

 

[Tibs]

Truth to power.

56 retired generals, admirals warn against Trump's transgender ban
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/3...rs-warn-against-trumps-transgender-troops-ban

Fifty-six retired generals and admirals are coming out against President Trump’s ban on transgender troops, arguing it would be disruptive and degrade military readiness, rather than improve it as the president asserted.

“This proposed ban, if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy,” the retired officers said in a statement released Tuesday by the Palm Center, which researches issues of gender and sexuality in the military.

“As a result, the proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy. Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving — and who want to serve — must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity.”

Some of the signatories on the statement include retired Gen. John Allen, who served as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command and special presidential envoy for the anti-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria coalition; retired Gen. Robert Sennewald, who led U.S. and U.N. forces in South Korea in the 1980s; and retired Vice Adm. Donald Arthur, who served as surgeon general of the Navy.

Last week, Trump tweeted that the military would “not accept or allow” transgender people to serve “in any capacity” because of the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” their service would bring. Trump claimed he made the decision after consultation with “my generals and military experts.”

A day later, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said the military would not implement the ban until it receives an official directive from Trump.

As of Monday, the Pentagon had yet to receive any official guidance, though a spokesman said the White House has begun reaching out to draft such an order.

In their Tuesday statement, the retired officers highlight two recent statements from former Joint Chiefs chairmen in support of transgender troops. Retired Gen. Martin Dempsey said on Twitter their service is a “blessing, not a burden,” while retired Adm. Mike Mullen said in a statement that “there is no reason to single out” transgender troops.

The retired officers also said Trump’s claims of high costs have already been rebutted by the Rand Corporation, as well as a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by the Palm Center’s director. Those studies found medical costs for transgender troops would be at most $8.4 million annually, or about 0.01 percent of the military’s annual medical budget.

“As for ostensible disruptions, transgender troops have been serving honorably and openly for the past year, and have been widely praised by commanders,” the retired officer added. “Eighteen foreign nations, including the UK and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve, and none has reported any detriment to readiness.”

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Interesting logic there. The medical costs would only be a small % of the defense budget therefore, it's OK. What % of the federal budget would building a wall be?

 

[deljzc]

"Mission Critical Talent"? Really?

What a load of crock....

One of the whole tenets of Military thinking is no one person is irreplaceable. Next man up epitomized military thinking. These 4000 individuals are "Mission Critical"? Exact opposite of what any true military person would say. If you don't have enough to do the job, the Military, by definition, makes it over abundant and redundant.

 

[Iron95]

Interesting logic there. The medical costs would only be a small % of the defense budget therefore, it's OK. What % of the federal budget would building a wall be?

What will it cost us to NOT build a wall?