President* Trump

[Vrede too]

That (cool) AND quoting Trey Gowdy seems rather bi to me, nttawwt.

[neoplacebo]

That (cool) AND quoting Trey Gowdy seems rather bi to me, nttawwt.

I don't get it.

[Leo Lyons]

That (cool) AND quoting Trey Gowdy seems rather bi to me, nttawwt.

I don't get it.

I don't either. Maybe Vrede can define what it's like to be bi.

[Vrede too]

That (cool) AND quoting Trey Gowdy seems rather bi to me, nttawwt.

I don't get it.

Seems to me to be an absolute conflict between Leo Lyons' "let 'em join" and his Trey Gowdy quote, AC/DC so to speak. Is the latter just childish trolling?

[neoplacebo]

That (cool) AND quoting Trey Gowdy seems rather bi to me, nttawwt.

I don't get it.

Seems to me to be an absolute conflict between Leo Lyons' "let 'em join" and his Trey Gowdy quote, AC/DC so to speak. Is the latter just childish trolling?

Oh, since your reply was just after my postings I couldn't understand what it meant. I never thought of myself as bisexual but then again if i could give myself oral sex I'd probably never leave the house. Hell, I wouldn't even answer the door if the cops were whomping on it. My only true experience with bisexuality was with two women and myself so I was sort of the odd man out, or in, depending on your viewpoint.

[Vrede too]

Oh, since your reply was just after my postings I couldn't understand what it meant.

Sorry.

I never thought of myself as bisexual

Nttawwt.

but then again if i could give myself oral sex I'd probably never leave the house. Hell, I wouldn't even answer the door if the cops were whomping on it.

After an Oakland Greatful Dead concert the cops brought in a young tripper found doing that in a Holiday Inn parking lot. We discussed whether auto-fellatio is the right term, or whether that's getting a blow job in a car.

My only true experience with bisexuality was with two women and myself so I was sort of the odd man out, or in, depending on your viewpoint.

Still hetero. Maybe bi if it's with a woman and a man, depending on what you do . . . or so I've heard.

[O Really]

Regarding who ought to be eligible for the military, the fundamental problem is that the military tries to recruit people who could all be kick-ass infantry people. Warriors. But truth is, many if not most of the military jobs don't require that skill or strength. If they used people more effectively, they could take a wider range of recruits without harming the "battle-ready" forces. They used to do something similar with the women (keeping them out of combat jobs), and they certainly give different assignments based on the tests one passes or fails, but they still require the same basic training as if everybody is going to do the same job. But the problem with the trans people is just bigotry and discrimination.

[neoplacebo]

Oh, since your reply was just after my postings I couldn't understand what it meant.

Sorry.

I never thought of myself as bisexual

Nttawwt.

but then again if i could give myself oral sex I'd probably never leave the house. Hell, I wouldn't even answer the door if the cops were whomping on it.

After an Oakland Greatful Dead concert the cops brought in a young tripper found doing that in a Holiday Inn parking lot. We discussed whether auto-fellatio is the right term, or whether that's getting a blow job in a car.

My only true experience with bisexuality was with two women and myself so I was sort of the odd man out, or in, depending on your viewpoint.

Still hetero. Maybe bi if it's with a woman and a man, depending on what you do . . . or so I've heard.

Well, for me it was bisexual because I was sexual and they were both near bi. We all broke the law and sinned repeatedly; it was truly a scene of debauchery and decadence that i will always wonder if I did the right thing or if I did the right thing enough. And that guy in Oakland must have been pretty talented. They should have made him head of gymnastics at the nearest facility and put up lighted billboards in his honor.

[Leo Lyons]

Seems to me to be an absolute conflict between Leo Lyons' "let 'em join" and his Trey Gowdy quote, AC/DC so to speak.

I posted the Trey 'Gaudy' article because I never thought too much along the lines of what he (supposedely?) said about the military's "go to hell with your discrimination bullshit". I thought it would be an interesting read. If a woman can climb a utility pole and wrestle a transformer to a pole, by god, hire her and pay her equally; same applies to what/whoever else crawls, hops, jumps, runs, skips, prances, swishes, or bungee jumps into the employment/recruiting office to apply. As for the military, there are many more jobs besides combat positions, however the same basic training applies to ALL applicants. If you can't cut it, goodbye. Just because you want equality doesn't mean you're cut out for it.

[neoplacebo]

Regarding who ought to be eligible for the military, the fundamental problem is that the military tries to recruit people who could all be kick-ass infantry people. Warriors. But truth is, many if not most of the military jobs don't require that skill or strength. If they used people more effectively, they could take a wider range of recruits without harming the "battle-ready" forces. They used to do something similar with the women (keeping them out of combat jobs), and they certainly give different assignments based on the tests one passes or fails, but they still require the same basic training as if everybody is going to do the same job. But the problem with the trans people is just bigotry and discrimination.

I'm surprised you have this position; from what you've posted in the past, I gather that you are a veteran and were also in military intelligence or in the JAG corps. The general consensus among that community is that this is a problem they don't want to have or address and are at the mercy of the civilian leadership. As I mentioned before, active duty military members are not covered by the traditional protections of the US Constitution. This is where the conflict is; the Constitution and the UCMJ are not compatible. This should be made clear at the outset since most non military people have no concept of this contradiction. I have no animosity toward trans gender people but I do feel they should maybe be made aware that should they elect to join the military, they will not be afforded the same civil liberties they had as civilians. Also, I feel that current members should be able to serve until retirement or until they decide to resign. I just think it's a case of leave well enough alone, don't make the issue a political or social one; it's an issue of conformance to an alternative lifestyle and should not be burdened with un needed complications. I truly do not see it in terms of bigotry or discrimination. I have disagreed with you on the issue of the leaking of classified information; to wit, Elllsberg. You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

[Vrede too]

.... You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

Why not? If they meet or exceed every other minimum standard expected of service members, isn't it discrimination to keep them out?

Well, for me it was bisexual because I was sexual and they were both near bi....

I don't think it's contagious.

[neoplacebo]

.... You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

Why not? If they meet or exceed every other minimum standard expected of service members, isn't it discrimination to keep them out?

Well, for me it was bisexual because I was sexual and they were both near bi....

I don't think it's contagious.

It's the conflict between the UCMJ and the Constitution that presents the problem. Maybe if we had mandatory universal military service like Israel has, the problem would be solved. Again, it's not meeting or exceeding any qualifications; it's the basic conflict between two different sets of statutory systems. I just don't see it as a discrimination issue. And it wouldn't be absent the UCMJ.

[Vrede too]

It's the conflict between the UCMJ and the Constitution that presents the problem. Maybe if we had mandatory universal military service like Israel has, the problem would be solved. Again, it's not meeting or exceeding any qualifications; it's the basic conflict between two different sets of statutory systems. I just don't see it as a discrimination issue. And it wouldn't be absent the UCMJ.

I'm not sure what you mean. So far, the debate has not been over whether trans folks have a constitutional right to serve, or what protections they have once in. It's just been over whether the CiC thinks they should be allowed to serve or not.

[O Really]

People in the military don't have the same rights as civilians, and are governed by the Uniform Code of Military (In)Justice, as you said. But before they're in the military, everybody is still a civilian and entitled to equal treatment under the law. So it is a fair argument to say the law should require the military to accept (or reject) specific types of persons. In times of war, standards get lowered. Poorly trained people get sent on jobs they don't know how to do. I think there is an argument to be made that people with known physical or mental conditions could be excluded based on the cost or effort of their care. I might consider turning down a transitioning person because of the cost and work disruption caused by the medical process of transition. But I wouldn't refuse a person whose transition was complete. But that's not really the argument Trump's making. He just thinks they're freaks, despite the number who have had successful careers in the military. But here's a real life example: the Army's physical standards are changing, with new qualifying measures. This is what the test will look like:

Deadlift between 120 and 420 pounds, depending on the individual soldier. You must do three reps in five minutes.
Two-minute rest.
Standing power throw. You’ll be required to toss a 10-pound medicine ball overhead and backward. You’ll have three minutes to make one practice throw and two for a grade. The longest distance is recorded.
Two-minute rest.
Hand-release push-ups. You lower your chest to the floor and lift your hands off the ground between each rep. You’ll be required to do the most reps in three minutes.
Two-minute rest.
Sprint-drag-carry. In four minutes, you will go 25 meters out and 25 meters back five times. Each iteration will include a different activity: sprint, drag a sled, run a lateral shuffle, carry two 40-pound kettle bells, then sprint again.
Two-minute rest.
Leg tuck. You will be required to hang from a pull-up bar and with your body parallel, then pull knees to your elbows for as many reps as possible in two minutes.
Five-minute rest.
Two-mile run on a track or a paved, level road, with a 20-minute maximum.

All told, the ACFT predicts with 80 percent accuracy whether a soldier will be effective in combat, Frost said, compared with 40 percent for the APFT.

So, I can actually do most of that to a minimum qualifying level, but not all, and certainly not good enough to pass. On the other hand, I could easily still do the work I did in the military. What difference does it make if I'm predicted to be effective in combat or not if I'm in a job that's not going to combat?

[O Really]

I have disagreed with you on the issue of the leaking of classified information; to wit, Elllsberg. You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

I don't remember what you disagreed with, but I said I thought Ellsberg was an honorable man whom I admired. I didn't say he shouldn't have been charged and tried for what he did. In fact, he took the action he did fully expecting to end up in jail. That's a big difference in him and whiney Assange, for example. They just want to say "I know what's best and classification means nothing" and walk away with no consequences. Martyrs have effected a lot of change over time, and there's certainly some honour in being a martyr, but doing something martyr-worthy and then saying "opps, I didn't know you'd really burn me at the stake. Can we just forget it" isn't going to work very often.

[neoplacebo]

It's the conflict between the UCMJ and the Constitution that presents the problem. Maybe if we had mandatory universal military service like Israel has, the problem would be solved. Again, it's not meeting or exceeding any qualifications; it's the basic conflict between two different sets of statutory systems. I just don't see it as a discrimination issue. And it wouldn't be absent the UCMJ.

I'm not sure what you mean. So far, the debate has not been over whether trans folks have a constitutional right to serve, or what protections they have once in. It's just been over whether the CiC thinks they should be allowed to serve or not.

I suppose I kind of went off the rails, then. As I noted earlier, I have no animosity against trans (or gay, though I only mentioned trans) people in any way. I was looking at the issue as if a soldier, after already being accepted into the military, makes an announcement that they are gay or trans and then expects to be treated in the same way a civilian would be treated. Because of the two different legal frameworks, this is not possible. And as for whether turmp should even be addressing the matter, I indicated before that persons currently serving should not be discriminated against or kicked out but allowed to serve until retirement or if they decide not to re enlist or to resign if an officer. I do not think trump should try to change anything about the current state of affairs. I apologize for the confusion. Again, currently serving members should not be targeted for discriminatory action due to their orientation; they should be allowed to serve without interference. At the time I left the Navy, they had begun initiating height/weight restrictions; if you were a certain height, you could not exceed a certain weight. I thought this was wrong, and it personally affected one of the cooks who was nearing his retirement eligibility. He was overweight but I never knew if he had to submit to the new guidelines or if he was able to serve until retirement. This is the framework I was looking at the trans issue through as well; changing the rules in the middle of the game, as it were.

[neoplacebo]

I have disagreed with you on the issue of the leaking of classified information; to wit, Elllsberg. You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

I don't remember what you disagreed with, but I said I thought Ellsberg was an honorable man whom I admired. I didn't say he shouldn't have been charged and tried for what he did. In fact, he took the action he did fully expecting to end up in jail. That's a big difference in him and whiney Assange, for example. They just want to say "I know what's best and classification means nothing" and walk away with no consequences. Martyrs have effected a lot of change over time, and there's certainly some honour in being a martyr, but doing something martyr-worthy and then saying "opps, I didn't know you'd really burn me at the stake. Can we just forget it" isn't going to work very often.

I am not sure either; I think it may have been about the Bradley Manning situation when he leaked classified info relative to Iraq and then somehow Ellsberg got brought up. If I remember correctly, you seemed to be very adamant against releasing classified info by anyone for any reason but the thing was quite some time ago so I can't recall any specifics of it. Or it may have been the Snowden case; not sure.

[O Really]

I am not sure either; I think it may have been about the Bradley Manning situation when he leaked classified info relative to Iraq and then somehow Ellsberg got brought up. If I remember correctly, you seemed to be very adamant against releasing classified info by anyone for any reason but the thing was quite some time ago so I can't recall any specifics of it. Or it may have been the Snowden case; not sure.

Well, with me, context and circumstances mean a lot. One size fits none.

[neoplacebo]

I am not sure either; I think it may have been about the Bradley Manning situation when he leaked classified info relative to Iraq and then somehow Ellsberg got brought up. If I remember correctly, you seemed to be very adamant against releasing classified info by anyone for any reason but the thing was quite some time ago so I can't recall any specifics of it. Or it may have been the Snowden case; not sure.

Well, with me, context and circumstances mean a lot. One size fits none.

Yeah, I also think it better to operate on a case by case basis as you stated earlier.

[Leo Lyons]

.... You disagree with me on this issue of sexual orientation for active military being an issue of bigotry or discrimination. Fair enough.

Why not? If they meet or exceed every other minimum standard expected of service members, isn't it discrimination to keep them out?

Minimum standards don't cut it in the military; it's not a job to provide life's basic necessities, but yes, it is a form discrimination if someone who is fit for the rigorous lifestyle the military demands to be rejected based on their lifestyle.

As I said earlier, I posted the Trey Gaudy article as an interesting read, not as an endorsement of the POTUS's position, although the relaxing of military standards for it's members would not be in the best interest of our nation's security.