The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[SheepDog4Life]

"Intelligence chairman accuses Obama aides of hundreds of unmasking requests"
Intelligence chairman accuses Obama aides of hundreds of unmasking requests | TheHill

Some tidbits:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing top political aides of President Obama of making hundreds of requests during the 2016 presidential race to unmask the names of Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials.

“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,”

- and -

Ordinarily, Americans whose email or phone data or conversations are intercepted by the National Security Agency without a warrant overseas are legally required to have their names redacted or masked with descriptions like “U.S. person 1” to protect their identities in intelligence reports.

But beginning in 2011, Obama loosened the rules to make it easier for intelligence officials and his own political aides to request that the names be unmasked so they could better understand raw intelligence being gathered overseas.

2011? Makes one wonder if Obama administration officials used the US Intelligence apparatus as a partisan oppo research arm in the 2012 election as well. It's becoming increasingly apparent that it was SOP for the 2016 election.

 

[Dddrees]

not a wise move......

Europe to U.S.: Your new Russia sanctions would hurt us too - Jul. 24, 2017

If you think whatever this is will ever stand a chance in winning the day or your argument well.......


Lets put it this way, Congress overwhelming just told the President we don't trust you.

 

[Dddrees]

Tillerson takes time off but not resigning. How long exactly before this becomes a reality?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...x-tillerson-taking-little-time-off/510355001/

In fact I have to wonder how long anybody is going to be willing to stick it out. Resignations in an Administration happens all the time, but isn't this and firings more likely given Trump?

 

[ghitch75]

If you think whatever this is will ever stand a chance in winning the day or your argument well.......


Lets put it this way, Congress overwhelming just told the President we don't trust you.

that is the way you see it....haters will hate....

 

[Kutnupe14]

That "he's not a hero" comment came back and bit Trump in the ass. McCain just gave a giant middle finger to Trump. And while one may think that McCain didn't support this bill due to the huge numbers of old people in his state, and him probably not running for re-election, I think his dislike for Trump is probably why he voted against repeal.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Agree, and in fact that's what I meant when I said I remember the times. Sorry, but for some reason it seems everybody thinks because I hate Trump I Luvs Clinton or that I'm a Democrat. Both in fact are completely untrue.

I'm curious. Who did you support in the primaries? Anyone? I'm not talking just R or D, all parties and independents.

Now for this thought that it makes any sense to roll out a policy like banning Transgenders from the Military via Twitter. What idiot would ever think that makes good sense? No let me guess, Trump.

He didn't roll out policy, he let people know that policy was going to change.

As suspected it looks as though Trump caught people off guard with this policy roll out via Twitter. The very people who will have to implement it and decide exactly how it will be implemented. Not to mention all those who will be affected by this policy. You may chose to take either side on this issue, however the way he goes about announcing a policy such as this is just simply screwed up. Chaos for chaos sake because he happened to get out of bed on one side vs the other this morning. Or maybe because he chooses to battle with Sessions but save his hide with his supporters on this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html

Per that article Mattis knew the day before.

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? T

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.

Heck a person with no legs can pilot a drone just fine. The drone doesn't care if the guy thousands of miles away sitting at a desk has legs does it?

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.

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.

Never been in the military, but I've held quite a few different jobs. I prefer to know that a policy is going to change in advance, even if I don't know the detail of how exactly they are going to change. Don't you?

Regarding transgender in the military. Given the known mental instability and 40% suicide rate of folks living as transgendered, why is it even a discussion about having them in the military? I thought we were supposed to do something about solider suicides? Perhaps NOT putting a group HIGHLY at risk for suicide in the military in the first place would be a good start?

because I know the narrative. A transgender person would kill them self or something drastic and then it would be released that some soldiers had been mean, and then comes the massive protected class, animosity, etc.

the military is not the place for this.

Heck the military doesn't let in those with a mental illness that is known do they? Per the DSM V gender dysphoria is a recognized mental illness. An openly transgendered person is admitting they are mentally ill.

I'm not proposing that either Mattis agrees or doesn't agree with the policy. I'm proposing that Mattis had no idea that the Policy was going to be rolled out imedeatly. I'm proposing because the Pentagon was caught flat footed is because Mattis was caught flat footed. Had Mattis been aware it was happening then the Pentagon would have been prepared for it. I mean that is what a professional does after all when it comes to policy.

Per your article above, Mattis knew the day before. Also where have you heard that this is to be rolled out immediately?

Sorry, i don't think so. Policy by Tweet is incompetent and irresponsible. Period

Now had the implementers been prepared and details worked out prior, well then....

However whenever you announce a policy via a 147 character limit that explains little, even if all the details are worked out prior all you do is whip up the mob while we wait to hear the details.

Governing the masses successfully requires more skill and thoughtfulness than just whipping up the mob and shouting lock her up.

I addressed this above, but I'll add to it. I've been told that layoffs were coming in a couple of months, they didn't know the total amount, what departments, or who would be laid off. But that due to loss of contracts that there would be layoffs unless something changed. I've also been told by the supervisor that there was a meeting after the shift and to come to the break room, the meeting was just for the people who were being laid off and we were told that this was our last day. Guess which one I preferred?

I've also had the same thing happen with policy changes within the company. In the one case we were told that certain policies were going to change, but that the details were being worked out. The other "meeting on such and such date" when we were told that policy is changing tomorrow and here is what it is going to be. Same question as above.

best to stop enlistment and then deal with existing troops. Don't need entire strategy in place to stop enlistment

Agreed.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

14,000 transgenders currently serving? I am very skeptical of that number.

Same here, they would have to be over 3x the number in the military than is estimated to be in the general population.

It might be 4000. It's not like I have really looked all that deep into it. Anyways what do you do with them?

A study commissioned by the DoD and conducted by the Rand Corp. puts the number somewhere between 1,320 to 6,630.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...y-spend-on-transgender-soldiers/#6d19921fca6e

Yeah, Ok.

Yet chaos still exists.

Any cites that quote anyone by name, rather than some anonymous "source"?

Wow!!

Your words yet?

Cute, very cute.

You wouldn't want to apologize would you?

I notice you didn't answer the question...

wasn't the policy changed to allow them less than a year ago? How many are in that long?

It's not necessarily how many have joined in the last year, you have to include those that were in but not open about it that have since came out since the policy change.

Your "general" description of trans falls well short of reality.

Like homosexuals a couple of decades ago, the majority of the trans community exists "in the closet". No one knows there is anything different between "them" and "us". Why should a person like that be automatically disqualified from serious consideration?

With an outright ban (all roles), trans people can still serve...but they cannot do it without lying.

Don't robust anti-fraternization rules accomplish a similar result without excluding potentially desirable recruits or forcing otherwise good people to lie?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with your first sentence. Considering depending on study somewhere between 32-46%(some demographics actually higher) actually attempt suicide, not just think about it.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

I've known one (openly, no idea about those in the closet) trans, "she" was full post op, prior to the change "he" was a total *******, after "she" was a pretty decent person. At least that I could tell, only spent a couple of days around "her" after.

Why should anyone with a mental illness be automatically banned from all roles? You do know that gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness in the DSM V (latest version).

Section 8. Mental illness discharge.

Nah, at least not imo. I'd say either honorable, or at worst general. Especially if they joined after the policy change.

I have to admit when in the Military and during Don't Ask Don't Tell I felt that way then. I've changed my mind. I admit I'm not a serving member now, but I have changed my mind.

Besides the most problems I saw then were with straight women and straight men. The problem was fratinization. The problem was not sexual orientation. If there's something diffrent with Transexuals serving then let's see that Military study. Let's not govern our reaction on spur of the moment political discions by Tweet.

What changed your mind between then and now? Could there be a possibility that not having to serve with them have any influence on your position?

Yep, that would probably cause the most problems, simply because they are the largest demographic. Estimates put the homosexual population at about 3% and the trans population at about .3%. This is just a guess, but I would put the % of both lower for military personnel. Simply from knowing quite a few homosexuals, including being related by blood and marriage to several. And knowing their personalities.

Paul, first you have to discount gender identity disorder as a psychiatric diagnosis

i don't

Yep.

 

[Dddrees]

That "he's not a hero" comment came back and bit Trump in the ass. McCain just gave a giant middle finger to Trump. And while one may think that McCain didn't support this bill due to the huge numbers of old people in his state, and him probably not running for re-election, I think his dislike for Trump is probably why he voted against repeal.

You'd like to think he did so for the countries sake, but I got to imagine the insult non-insult as some might think came back to haunt Trump. Trump the ultimate dealmaker. LOL

 

[Dddrees]

Priebus out Kelly in. Question isn't whether Kelley is capable, question is whether Trump is capable of listening to Kelley?


I do have to wonder how long it'll take before Trump cleans house the next time.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Never liked Rience. I wanted Newt in that position

 

[Dddrees]

Never liked Rience. I wanted Newt in that position

Never thought Rience was any James Baker but for that matter who is. However especially after this latest Scaramucci thing one really has to wonder if anyone will ever be able to get control of this Administration. Seriously what a Sh** Show.

 

[Jludo]

What's the ingo explanation for this one.

If the Senate Democrats ever got the chance, they would switch to a 51 majority vote in first minute. They are laughing at R's. MAKE CHANGE! - Trump tweet

 

[KLB]

What's the ingo explanation for this one.

If the Senate Democrats ever got the chance, they would switch to a 51 majority vote in first minute. They are laughing at R's. MAKE CHANGE! - Trump tweet

He can say very stupid things at times.

 

[Dddrees]

What's the ingo explanation for this one.

If the Senate Democrats ever got the chance, they would switch to a 51 majority vote in first minute. They are laughing at R's. MAKE CHANGE! - Trump tweet

How does that change reality? Obamacare Repeal and Replace or just Repeal went nowhere when they needed just 51 votes. Besides change it to 51 votes for all legislation and see what it does when the Democrats get back to having a majority. You think things aren't civil now.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

How does that change reality? Obamacare Repeal and Replace or just Repeal went nowhere when they needed just 51 votes. Besides change it to 51 votes for all legislation and see what it does when the Democrats get back to having a majority. You think things aren't civil now.

You missed that the Senate Parlimentarian ruled the Republican bill out-of-bounds for the Reconciliation process several weeks ago, that led to the "skinny repeal" which lost 49-51. What that meant is that the bill they wanted to vote upon would have face a filibuster, i.e. 60-vote threshold, instead of the 51-vote Budget Reconciliation process.

 

[jamil]

You missed that the Senate Parlimentarian ruled the Republican bill out-of-bounds for the Reconciliation process several weeks ago, that led to the "skinny repeal" which lost 49-51. What that meant is that the bill they wanted to vote upon would have face a filibuster, i.e. 60-vote threshold, instead of the 51-vote Budget Reconciliation process.

Where was the senate parliamentarian when Reid replaced the entire contents of a veterans bill passed unanimously by the house with Obamacare?

 

[Dddrees]

You missed that the Senate Parlimentarian ruled the Republican bill out-of-bounds for the Reconciliation process several weeks ago, that led to the "skinny repeal" which lost 49-51. What that meant is that the bill they wanted to vote upon would have face a filibuster, i.e. 60-vote threshold, instead of the 51-vote Budget Reconciliation process.

The point was that the circumstances they were able to use for this process failed at the 51 threshold. If they change the rules to allow only 51 votes for normal legislation where does that really get them or even the US in the end? What happens if and when the Democrats gain control again? Sorry but at some point to make this work there's going to have to be some compromise.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Never liked Rience. I wanted Newt in that position

the GOP owes a LOT to Reince. He's the one that designed the GOP takeover in congress in '12.

 

[Dddrees]

With the Bill going forward to the Presidents desk telling him that he can't lift Russian sanctions and the Senate Judiciary Committee telling Trump that they won't approve another AG how many more powers do you think the Congress ultimately limit or take away from this President? Although this happens all the time isn't it a bit unusual when both branches of government are controlled by the same party?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Where was the senate parliamentarian when Reid replaced the entire contents of a veterans bill passed unanimously by the house with Obamacare?

Built into your question is the assumption that Washington non-partisan positions are, in fact, non-partisan. In DC, the term means something else, more akin to non-Republican.

For example, the current Senate Parliamentarian aided Al Gore in his attempt to [STRIKE]manufacture[/STRIKE] recount votes in 2000, even though she was already an Assistant Parliamentarian at the time. Aiding a Democrat attempting to [STRIKE]steal an election[/STRIKE] change the election rules after the fact is non-partisan.

Another example... in the Special Prosecutor's office, attorney's who give the maximum allowable individuals donations to Democrats are non-partisan. Give any money to a Republican, and you are partisan.

See how it works, now?