President* Trump

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18492
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Vrede too » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:59 pm

neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:51 pm
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.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:18 pm

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?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:23 pm

neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:27 pm
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.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:57 am

Vrede too wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:59 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:51 pm
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.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:09 am

O Really wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:23 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:27 pm
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.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:01 am

neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:09 am

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.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:15 am

O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:01 am
neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:09 am

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.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:34 am

Vrede too wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:32 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:27 pm
.... 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.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:59 am

Leo Lyons wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:34 am

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.
Leo, if you were ever in the military, you know very well that a lot of jobs (probably most) don't have much of a "rigorous lifestyle." About 20% =/- of military jobs are combat. (can't totally verify that, but I found it in several cursory sources) What's wrong with making sure the real warriors have the best training, the best resources, and the best support and still use a IT tech guy in a wheel chair to sit in front of a computer screen 8 hours a day?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:50 am

neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:15 am
O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:01 am
neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:09 am

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.
I did find Snowden's case particularly egregious. In addition to charging him with all sorts of evil-doing, I would have sacked those responsible for hiring him, and sacked those who were ummmm, "supervising" him. And then I would sack whoever was responsible for using contractors for positions such as that held by Snowden.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:35 am

O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:50 am
neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:15 am
O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:01 am
neoplacebo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:09 am

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.
I did find Snowden's case particularly egregious. In addition to charging him with all sorts of evil-doing, I would have sacked those responsible for hiring him, and sacked those who were ummmm, "supervising" him. And then I would sack whoever was responsible for using contractors for positions such as that held by Snowden.
Yeah, I always was puzzled by the fact that he didn't actually work for NSA but rather was a private contractor. I had no idea that an outfit such as NSA would ever think of engaging this type of labor. Makes me wonder if they're still using contractors.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18492
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:42 am

Thank Reagan for initiating the privatization of what should be government functions. Plus, some people just won't do high skill work for government pay. That said, Manning was not a contractor.

:?: :?: :?:
"Minimum standards" are exactly what the military has and has always had. Fail to achieve them and you're out. Don't confuse "Minimum" with 'low', they can be as demanding as the military chooses.
O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:59 am
Leo, if you were ever in the military, you know very well that a lot of jobs (probably most) don't have much of a "rigorous lifestyle." About 20% =/- of military jobs are combat. (can't totally verify that, but I found it in several cursory sources) What's wrong with making sure the real warriors have the best training, the best resources, and the best support and still use a IT tech guy in a wheel chair to sit in front of a computer screen 8 hours a day?
Maybe they want to be able to threaten everyone with infantry if their IT work doesn't measure up? ;)
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 10791
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by O Really » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:50 am

Way many people to share blame of Snowden. F'rinstance, it's not up to some loose cannon contractor to determine what national security programs are good or harmful to the society/world, and he had no right - legal or ethical - to wreck those programs. However, if he did present some valid concerns, somebody should have handled those in a way that wouldn't have incited him to more havoc. One way would be to investigate what he was reporting; another would be to sack him before he was able to steal so much stuff. Either would have been better than what they did, which was to ignore an obvious malcontent. Here's how hard it would probably have been to handle that (oversimplified, but still): "Booze-Allen, this is NSA. We'd like to change out one of your guys for somebody else..."

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:05 pm

O Really wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:59 am
Leo Lyons wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:34 am
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.
Leo, if you were ever in the military, you know very well that a lot of jobs (probably most) don't have much of a "rigorous lifestyle." About 20% =/- of military jobs are combat. (can't totally verify that, but I found it in several cursory sources) What's wrong with making sure the real warriors have the best training, the best resources, and the best support and still use a IT tech guy in a wheel chair to sit in front of a computer screen 8 hours a day?
You've misconscrewed what I said. There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving a handicapped man or woman a desk job; in our minds, that is. I don't know how the military recruits for desk jobs today or if the same rigorous training is STILL required for all military personnel, as it used to be.
The necessities for military service is namely discipline; some people can't handle taking orders; some people are assholes when giving orders; but in either case, personal discipline is required to deal with either.

GoCubsGo
Ensign
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by GoCubsGo » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:28 am

A theory:

Caught the news on BBCA and they mentioned that tRump was in to Duetchebank for about $850 mil. No wonder he doesn't want anyone to see his taxes. I'm kinda thinking he doesn't have the cash flow to service this and other debts....kinda makes sense. D-bank won't foreclose on a US President (plus the old axiom of you own the bank and the bank owns you).

The returns could show what a crapass businessman he is, possibly going broke. If it was 1929 he'd jump from tRump Tower.
I wanna see the tax returns.

Found this article from 2016, estimated debt at 1.1 bil. Things have probably not gone north for his holdings recent and I'm not buying all about he author's conclusions.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/5-things- ... umps-debt/

Or, he could just be a dirty money launderer and tax cheat.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000101 010202

If Guns Made Us Safer, America Would Be The Safest Country In The World.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:11 am

I will select dirty money launderer and tax cheat for 600

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:22 am

A few days ago started reading "Like War - The Weaponization of Social Media" by P.W. Singer and Emerson Brooking. One part of the book examines Russia's Internet Research Agency, which utilized 75 research and educational institutions coordinated by the Russian FSS for the purposes of manipulating social media info and driving a narrative. It goes on to explain that if you are successful in driving a narrative, you will be able to dictate who the villians and heroes are, what's right and what's wrong, and what's real and what isn't. The strategy for achieving this is referred to as the "4D's" which are dismiss the critic, distort the facts, distract from the main issue, and dismay the audience. I submit that trump has studied this very well and has been using it on a daily basis.

So today I was still reading the book above and it started talking about Pepe the Frog, which, as you may know from a few days ago I did not know of him but now have the whole story. The book says trump actually dressed up as him at one point. It also described the time when Richard Spencer was explaining about him until some passerby punched him in the face. :lol:
Last edited by neoplacebo on Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:20 pm

neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:54 pm
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.
Well I'll be damned! Max Headroom! Ain't seen or heard hide-ner-hair of him in years! Welcome home!

Speaking of head of gymnastics; here's a real scene of debauchery! :lol: :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/wwsarII/videos/291402367976908

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by neoplacebo » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:11 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:20 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:54 pm
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.
Well I'll be damned! Max Headroom! Ain't seen or heard hide-ner-hair of him in years! Welcome home!

Speaking of head of gymnastics; here's a real scene of debauchery! :lol: :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/wwsarII/videos/291402367976908
Thanks. I used to watch Max back when he first came out. He's generally gleefully disrespectful and one of a kind.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 18492
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: President* Trump

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:53 pm

neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:11 pm
Thanks. I used to watch Max back when he first came out. He's generally gleefully disrespectful and one of a kind.
Is 'max head room' a description of your Admiral of the Fleet's toilet?
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

Post Reply