The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Repeal goes nowhere for now. H*** the republicans had 7 Senators break ranks and vote against.

Next maneuver, Skinny Repeal. Did the Repeal go on a diet?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Repeal goes nowhere for now. H*** the republicans had 7 Senators break ranks and vote against.

Next maneuver, Skinny Repeal. Did the Repeal go on a diet?

I'm confused, I think...wasn't this one of those sorta-kinda-feel-good repeals the House passed once they knew a president might actually sign and not one of the straight up repeals they were posturing and passing when Obama was in office?

 

[jbombelli]

Like I said before... The Republicans don't actually want to repeal the ACA. They managed to find just enough Republicans to vote against that and it didn't happen. And at the same time they convinced most Republicans that they tried and so won't lose much voter support.

 

[Dddrees]

Scaramucci: Senior People are the ones who are doing the Leaking.

Scaramucci on White House leaks: 'We're going to let people go if we have to' | Fox News

 

[Dddrees]

I'm confused, I think...wasn't this one of those sorta-kinda-feel-good repeals the House passed once they knew a president might actually sign and not one of the straight up repeals they were posturing and passing when Obama was in office?

Well it is an entitlement, so you know what they say about entitlements. But the thing is at least the President has said they were going to make The Healthcare program a much better program. I think he said he was going to make it cheaper, better, and cover more people. In fact he said over the course of this whole thing it was going to include most of the same key principles of the Obamacare program with the exception of the individual mandate. So on one hand it sounds the Republicans want to take it away and on the other the President wants to give everybody a much better entitlement program.

In the long run the Republicans have yet to be able to sell the takeaway to the masses and h*** even the President called the House Bill mean after he held a party for it.

You tell me if that sounds like the Republicans have their s*** together?

 

[jamil]

Shouldn't their 'usefulness and ability to carry out their duties' be determined on a case by case basis? If just one person can pull it off isn't a blanket ban unwarranted?

I didn't say I'm against transgenders. I said rationality is the best way to react to them. Certainly not emotion, which the "if just one person can pull it off..." sounds like. The military discriminates now. They have standards for IQ, disabilities, mental disorders, height, weight, criminal history and more. So let's take your thought to its logical conclusion. Probably the military could find one disabled person who could be useful, so why have standards for people with disabilities? Well, what's the cost to finding out who is useful? The military developed the standard limitations they have in place now because someone did the math. THAT's rational.

People don't have a right to be in the military. The military has to be able to discriminate in their enlistments to find the most efficient way to have the best fighting force. I think Mattis has the right approach. Last month he gave the military leaders time to conduct reviews to see if allowing transgender'd people in the military will inhibit the military's purpose. That's rational. And after having done the math, if the answer is "case by case" then that's the answer. If the answer is no, then it's no. This issue is best left in the "facts don't care about your feelings" column.

Of course all of that is aside from Trump's tweet. I think that was a distraction. Or maybe it was pathological. I'm not sure yet. But either way it wasn't rational. The military hasn't even finished their evaluation yet.

 

[Dddrees]

I didn't say I'm against transgenders. I said rationality is the best way to react to them. Certainly not emotion, which the "if just one person can pull it off..." sounds like. The military discriminates now. They have standards for IQ, disabilities, mental disorders, height, weight, criminal history and more. So let's take your thought to its logical conclusion. Probably the military could find one disabled person who could be useful, so why have standards for people with disabilities? Well, what's the cost to finding out who is useful? The military developed the standard limitations they have in place now because someone did the math. THAT's rational.

People don't have a right to be in the military. The military has to be able to discriminate in their enlistments to find the most efficient way to have the best fighting force. I think Mattis has the right approach. Last month he gave the military leaders time to conduct reviews to see if allowing transgender'd people in the military will inhibit the military's purpose. That's rational. And after having done the math, if the answer is "case by case" then that's the answer. If the answer is no, then it's no. This issue is best left in the "facts don't care about your feelings" column.

Of course all of that is aside from Trump's tweet. I think that was a distraction. Or maybe it was pathological. I'm not sure yet. But either way it wasn't rational. The military hasn't even finished their evaluation yet.

Supposedly Rand has done a study previously and found that overall there was very little to any of this. Frankly not surprised given the military's history with integration and gays in the Military.

Either way Trumps Tweet of announcing policy via Tweet Regardless the subject is strictly bad business. He likes to say he such a great businessman yet he announces something like this without his key leaders knowing in advance and in fact not knowing any of the details.

Now you have these people on duty and possibly in combat who find as of yesterday that very possibly or even more likely they are no longer considered good enough by the Comander in Child to be fit for duty. What's in store for them and what are they supposed to do? Boy I hope nobody here happens to have someone they know being a battle buddy of one these people who are no longer fit for duty.

 

[Birds Away]

I didn't say I'm against transgenders. I said rationality is the best way to react to them. Certainly not emotion, which the "if just one person can pull it off..." sounds like. The military discriminates now. They have standards for IQ, disabilities, mental disorders, height, weight, criminal history and more. So let's take your thought to its logical conclusion. Probably the military could find one disabled person who could be useful, so why have standards for people with disabilities? Well, what's the cost to finding out who is useful? The military developed the standard limitations they have in place now because someone did the math. THAT's rational.

People don't have a right to be in the military. The military has to be able to discriminate in their enlistments to find the most efficient way to have the best fighting force. I think Mattis has the right approach. Last month he gave the military leaders time to conduct reviews to see if allowing transgender'd people in the military will inhibit the military's purpose. That's rational. And after having done the math, if the answer is "case by case" then that's the answer. If the answer is no, then it's no. This issue is best left in the "facts don't care about your feelings" column.

Of course all of that is aside from Trump's tweet. I think that was a distraction. Or maybe it was pathological. I'm not sure yet. But either way it wasn't rational. The military hasn't even finished their evaluation yet.

I agree with everything said above regarding potential military service by transgender folks. There are a lot of people who are disqualified from service in the military. This is as it must be. As for the tweets, well, I think this is his way of talking directly to his base without the filter of the various news organizations. There is logic in his decision and I think that a lot of folks will understand where he is coming from. It looks bad and sounds bad but, in effect, it does serve a purpose.

 

[Dddrees]

I agree with everything said above regarding potential military service by transgender folks. There are a lot of people who are disqualified from service in the military. This is as it must be. As for the tweets, well, I think this is his way of talking directly to his base without the filter of the various news organizations. There is logic in his decision and I think that a lot of folks will understand where he is coming from. It looks bad and sounds bad but, in effect, it does serve a purpose.

He can talk to his people via Tweet anytime he wishes. But please tell me how Policy by Tweet makes any sense when the implementers have no idea what is going on not to mention those being affected because we have no details about the policy in the meantime.


By the way your defense of this policy is no different than what was used during the time of integration or with regards to gays in the Military. What was once old is now new, no difference.

 

[Dddrees]

Scaramucci: "Very good idea who the leakers are"

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So if in fact it was a setup are you saying Don Jr isn't responsible for taking the meeting?

Don Jr is responsible for his actions
Of course Don Jr is still responsible for taking the meeting. It was inappropriate for him to do so and to invite/involve other inner circle types to attend. It's inappropriate because even though dirt-digging is universal in our political system, being found with dirt on your hands from the actual digging turns off some voters, so it's done at arms-length, or double arms-length. Doug from House of Cards is actually an amalgam of multiple people, someone who knows someone who knows someone else that gives plausible deniability. If the "someone" at the end of the chain is a "news media" type, all the better.

In itself, not illegal though. Unless a quid pro quo with a foreign government (a la Obama) pops out, that is.

The other part he is responsible for is that the meeting was a nothing burger and a waste of time. He didn't vet at all and just thought it would all fall into his lap. Novice.

Is there a Clinton/DNC connection to Russia via Fusion GPS?
The key, though, is that Trump campaign connections with Russia have been under investigation for almost 16 months with no evidence of collusion. What we are now seeing is an uninvestigated alignment of Russian interests and Clinton/DNC interests in influencing the campaign AGAINST Trump using a common resource, Fusion GPS.

That might be as far as it goes, just coincidence, but what if the two streams touch? The FBI hasn't spent a second looking at that.

 

[Birds Away]

He can talk to his people via Tweet anytime he wishes. But please tell me how Policy by Tweet makes any sense when the implementers have no idea what is going on not to mention those being affected because we have no details about the policy in the meantime.


By the way your defense of this policy is no different than what was used during the time of integration or with regards to gays in the Military. What was once old is now new, no difference.

On your first point there is two parts. Yes, it is fine for him to circumvent the media and announce policy directly to the people since the press often distorts the message. No, it isn't good leadership to announce policy without your top folks already being briefed and onboard. Of course, since his administration is leakier than the Titanic maybe he feels this is the only way he can be the first to get the new policy out. If he briefs his top leadership it will be in the NYT the next morning.

As to your second point. I wholeheartedly disagree. This is nothing like integration and saying that it is insults people of color and gays and lesbians in the military. Your conflation of homosexuality and transgenderism is erroneous. Homosexuality does not lead to medical intervention on what otherwise would be considered a healthy individual. This is a problem the military doesn't have the time or resources to manage.

 

[Dddrees]

Don Jr is responsible for his actions
Of course Don Jr is still responsible for taking the meeting. It was inappropriate for him to do so and to invite/involve other inner circle types to attend. It's inappropriate because even though dirt-digging is universal in our political system, being found with dirt on your hands from the actual digging turns off some voters, so it's done at arms-length, or double arms-length. Doug from House of Cards is actually an amalgam of multiple people, someone who knows someone who knows someone else that gives plausible deniability. If the "someone" at the end of the chain is a "news media" type, all the better.

In itself, not illegal though. Unless a quid pro quo with a foreign government (a la Obama) pops out, that is.

The other part he is responsible for is that the meeting was a nothing burger and a waste of time. He didn't vet at all and just thought it would all fall into his lap. Novice.

Is there a Clinton/DNC connection to Russia via Fusion GPS?
The key, though, is that Trump campaign connections with Russia have been under investigation for almost 16 months with no evidence of collusion. What we are now seeing is an uninvestigated alignment of Russian interests and Clinton/DNC interests in influencing the campaign AGAINST Trump using a common resource, Fusion GPS.

That might be as far as it goes, just coincidence, but what if the two streams touch? The FBI hasn't spent a second looking at that.

Not sure I'm ready to agree nothing came of this meeting yet or not. What are we going by what Donny Jr says happened when he's already said multiple different things about this meeting already?

As to what the Dems part in all this is, really not sure where this is coming from? Is Fushion GPS the next Breitbart, sorry but I have no idea who Fushion GPS is.

At least we agree regardless of who setup the meeting it doesn't absolve Don Jr of his individual responsibilities even if they are illegal or not. Really too bad this kind of thing isn't illegal whether it be something a Democrat or Republican did.

 

[Dddrees]

On your first point there is two parts. Yes, it is fine for him to circumvent the media and announce policy directly to the people since the press often distorts the message. No, it isn't good leadership to announce policy without your top folks already being briefed and onboard. Of course, since his administration is leakier than the Titanic maybe he feels this is the only way he can be the first to get the new policy out. If he briefs his top leadership it will be in the NYT the next morning.

As to your second point. I wholeheartedly disagree. This is nothing like integration and saying that it is insults people of color and gays and lesbians in the military. Your conflation of homosexuality and transgenderism is erroneous. Homosexuality does not lead to medical intervention on what otherwise would be considered a healthy individual. This is a problem the military doesn't have the time or resources to manage.

Maybe his administration that consists of his people is as leaky as the most porous boat known to man. That's his issue and he needs to get his house in order. However that's a poor excuse for showing even more incompetence for an extremely poor management style. When any of your policies affect the amount of people that they do maybe he could find it within himself to do the right thing instead of the instant satisfaction he seems to want to get all of the time. I think given who this policy affects maybe there are some more willing to accept the way it was rolled out. Maybe this was also acceptable when it comes to his first Travel Ban as well. Do wonder however how acceptable it would be if it affected any of us?


i'd be real interested to see what these medical costs are all about. But if Transgenders can be banned maybe they could exempt some of those costs instead. And no I don't see treatment of Transgender people being any different than treatment of any other people. I'm not trying to become the Transgender spokesperson, but it certainly seems to me this is no different than our acceptance of any people in general.

 

[Birds Away]

Maybe his administration that consists of his people is as leaky as the most porous boat known to man. That's his issue and he needs to get his house in order. However that's a poor excuse for showing even more incompetence for an extremely poor management style. When any of your policies affect the amount of people that they do maybe he could find it within himself to do the right thing instead of the instant satisfaction he seems to want to get all of the time. I think given who this policy affects maybe there are some more willing to accept the way it was rolled out. Maybe this was also acceptable when it comes to his first Travel Ban as well. Do wonder however how acceptable it would be if it affected any of us?



i'd be real interested to see what these medical costs are all about. But if Transgenders can be banned maybe they could exempt some of those costs instead. And no I don't see treatment of Transgender people being any different than treatment of any other people. I'm not trying to become the Transgender spokesperson, but it certainly seems to me this is no different than our acceptance of any people in general.

I don't like the tweets and my response wasn't intended as justification as much as possibly one explanation as to why he chose to proceed in this fashion. Having served a long time in the military I can tell you that policy changes getting dropped on us without notice was fairly routine.

Despite what a leftist judge said the military should not be responsible for making Bradley Manning into Chelsea Manning. It isn't what the military is for and they are ill-suited for this task.

 

[Dddrees]

I don't like the tweets and my response wasn't intended as justification as much as possibly one explanation as to why he chose to proceed in this fashion. Having served a long time in the military I can tell you that policy changes getting dropped on us without notice was fairly routine.

Despite what a leftist judge said the military should not be responsible for making Bradley Manning into Chelsea Manning. It isn't what the military is for and they are ill-suited for this task.

Ok, so your not justifying it. Then can we at least agree Policy by Tweet especially when the implementers are not aware and the details are not determined is an extremely bad way of doing things?

 

[Dddrees]

Pentagon requests next steps on Transgender policy.

Appears the Pentagon thinks they need a clue as to what the Commander in Child wishes to do next. You think that Trump could at least Tweet them and let them know what they're supposed to do.

 

[Dddrees]

Scaramucci: if Reince (Priebus) wants to explain he's not a leaker let him do that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Not sure I'm ready to agree nothing came of this meeting yet or not. What are we going by what Donny Jr says happened when he's already said multiple different things about this meeting already?

All present agree the meeting was short. That the evidence of Clinton's criminal activity in Russia was unconvincing. That the meeting disbanded shortly after the Russian lawyer commenced her Magnitsky Act/adoption spiel. That there were no follow-up meetings.

Whether that is the truth or not, do you agree that there is no publicly reported evidence to the contrary?

As to what the Dems part in all this is, really not sure where this is coming from? Is Fushion GPS the next Breitbart, sorry but I have no idea who Fushion GPS is.

Fusion GPS was the oppo research entity acting as agent for Clinton/DNC in producing the pee-pee memo. They funneled the money to the ex-UK spy who in turn funneled it to Russian "sources" in producing the hit piece. Which, btw, was so fantastical and wholly uncorroborated that no news source reported upon it until Comey inexplicably included in briefing materials, thereby making a news story, and giving it legs.

That "russian agents" used the same entity for their smear campaign is either a coincidence, or not. But that is uninvestigated whether the activities were coordinated. Hence, some traction for a conspiracy theory.

At least we agree regardless of who setup the meeting it doesn't absolve Don Jr of his individual responsibilities even if they are illegal or not. Really too bad this kind of thing isn't illegal whether it be something a Democrat or Republican did.

Making every politician in DC a criminal... well, adding a count to the list, lol! (yes, I'm a cynic... no such thing a clean politician, I only suspect 3 of such in my half century plus lifetime)

ETA: Sorry, a couple edits and adds... done now

 

[Birds Away]

Ok, so your not justifying it. Then can we at least agree Policy by Tweet especially when the implementers are not aware and the details are not determined is an extremely bad way of doing things?

Yes, we can.