No More Tranny Soldiers

>>>>The military is not created as a means to conduct social experiments

Like mixing white and colored troops together.

Right, because the military doesn't do anything else but fight on the front lines.

This policy is absurd.

Where will the OP look for dates now?

No joke, today is the anniversary of Truman integrating the military:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981

Seadoggie being a tool as usual....

Oh Dead 2 is Seadog, that makes sense

Good thing Trump put his businesses in his children's names.  I bet they will inherit them full on in less than a year. I hate to think Trump will be looked upon as a martyr....

Yes, racism is the Democratic Party's past. It's the Republican Party's present and future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/26/in-a-city-tha...

In September, the Guardian stopped by a Republican Party picnic outside of Youngstown, hoping for a bit of that Midwestern, Rust-Belt real-keeping. Reporter Paul Lewis interviewed Kathy Miller, a former town trustee in nearby Boardman who was serving as Donald Trump’s campaign chairman in the county — at least, until Lewis’s interview with her was published.

 

“I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected,” she said. She continued: “If you’re black and you haven’t been successful in the last 50 years? It’s your own fault.” She added that there’s no racism if “people have jobs and go to work and do what they’re supposed to do,” and that if black people are offended by her saying that, it’s “because they’re not going to work.”

 

“We have three generations of all still having unwed babies, kids that don’t go through high school,” Miller said. “I mean, when do they take responsibility for how they live? I think it’s due time, and I think that’s good that Mr. Trump is pointing that out.”

but But BUT 

HILLARY!!

Ben-Gay-zi!!

Number of party members that have stated (posted on FB) that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla:

Democrats: 0

Republicans: 10,275,396

> BUILDING A MILITARY FOR ONE PURPOSE, AND FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY: “TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE!”<<

AND FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY: “TO ENRICH BANKERS AND CORPORATIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POPULATION!”

there. fixed it.

Hüsky was on a military base for a couple days past weekend (Dogsitter lives there)  and he is a post-op transvestite.  Neutered at about one year old.  He no longer has his bollocks.

However,  no one discriminated against H.I.M.  and he coexisted peacefully there with Cocoa & Sam, the doggies,  and the Hu-person family.

I hope that these new draconian measures will not ruin his potential future dog-sitting stays there.  That military base is the perfect location to contain a Hüsky.  Think about it...  even if he escapes the fenced yard at the residence,  the Base is one Humongous fenced-in compound, with soldiers guarding the gates. 

It's liek,  an incredibly huge Dog-Park with armed guards to ensure his safety.  I needed a special pass to have access,  but they never checked his Rabies tag or Dog License.  I suspect that he already has a top-secret military clearance from before the time I adopted H.I.M.

"75 years ago the Democrats were the Party of racism, so that means that they still are today."

Uh, no...

"75 minutes ago Dead2 was an idiot, so that means that he still is now."

Okay, we'll give him that.

^^Does that make u hard 

>>> The Democratic party for now is reduced to a loud racist/sexist/homophobe broken record that fewer and fewer are listening to — including many of the Democratic elites who continue to play it.

This is complete gibberish

^^^^

But BrainK --

Just step out of your technicolor-dreamcoat woven from political Ramen for a moment,  and consider the implications for my post-op Tranny Dawg's future on the military base.

Will there be discrimination against H.I.M.  that ruins his future there ??  This is what worries me.  He enjoyed his brief stint with the military.  That family had a couple doggies,  a batch of little kids and they gave H.I.M. Bacon & Eggs with his kibble.  

So aside from maybe having to wake up a bit early,  he was a Good Soldier.  I'm concerned about his future on Base.  He's always voted the straight Mormon ticket.

Stu. Please.

Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."

Biden also spoke to reporters in a conference call Wednesday afternoon and said the remark was taken out of context.

"Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I've been around," Biden said on the call. "And he's fresh. He's new. He's smart. He's insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world 'clean.'"

Biden said he was referring to a phrase used by his mother.

"My mother has an expression: clean as a whistle, sharp as a tack," Biden said.

Obama, in a brief off-camera interview in a Senate hallway, said he thinks Biden "didn't intend to offend" anyone.

"He called me," Obama said. "I told him it wasn't necessary. We have got more important things to worry about. We have got Iraq. We have got health care. We have got energy. This is low on the list."

"He was very gracious and I have no problem with Joe Biden," Obama added.

Later on Wednesday, Obama, in a written statement, said "I didn't take Sen. Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

Donld Trump the draft dodger who never served deciding who can and cannot serve.

What an asshole.

war mongers are usually draft dodgers...

Don't say it here tell it to the Navy Seal

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/343893-transgender-navy-seal...

Also this is just red meat for the base, and like the tiny minded sheeple that they are they will fall for it. Trump still thinks he can tweet things and make them so. Doesn't work that way. This won't happen. 

^That's AWESOME!!!

'Murca!

no real "liberal" is a dem or obomb-ya fan...

no matter the party, they still are steering the same war machine.

this right/left, black/white world view is so simple-minded.

Did you all know, the trannies in the military didn't hinder Obama from dropping 26,000 bombs in 2016?

I bet that every time a bomb hit its mark, the service-people cheered, and gender made no difference. Every time one missed, and killed a couple of hundred kids, those same military people gasped. Gender still made no difference.

Crazy, right? When it comes to killing, it doesn't matter if someone was born with a dick or a twat, what they have now or what their gender identity is. The only prerequisite is wanting to be in the military.

For the record, you all would want a trained trans-sexual in the military over me.

>>  no real "liberal" is a dem or obomb-ya fan...

Being a liberal doesn't require being a pacifist. You complain about a simple minded black-white world in the same post that you're policing terminology.

we all must wear tie-dyes too, right turtle?

huh?

Dead2 -

Is this what you have in mind for the United States of America?

His speech at that Scout Jubilee was shameful. The douchebag was campaigning for all those kids who will vote for the first time in 2020.

>>And when children start worshipping some political leader, something deeply disturbing is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XqnE1PnWF4

Bigots will be bigots

>> Child worship of Obama

You do know Obama is not the President and...

Hillary Clinton lost to Russia right?

Of course you do.

Now that we got that out of the way...

Care to elaborate why you ALWAYS try to deflect from the issues brought up about the most despicable, low polling, failing, treasonous president in history?

Of course you don't.

I wouldn't expect you to be able to wrap your child like mind around it...

Soooo, Keep up the STRONG work Pickle!

But don't say cunt, guys.

coño

hmmm....corporations...rich people...religious nutbags...how does it work?

LOL; 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfOxiapXLrE

Sea Groggy

Doggy Doo

something is terribly terribly

wrong with you

(in my best Dr Seuss meter)

May god help your soul (your mind is beyond pale)

Things I learned on late night TV last night:

- There are over 15,000 transgender in the active military

- many are in highly trained and skilled positions

- if not honorably discharged because of this shit, they will be fucked for life out of benefits they have earned

- the military spends more on viagra than it does anything to do with gender reassignment

- Trump announced this in a pre 9 am tweet

The new blurt confuses me. No caps, colors, responding on the thread. 

Are we sure it's him?

As I said before this won't happen. The Mad King thinks he can tweet and it will happen. His followers think all transgender people are now out of the military. Meanwhile back in the real world

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-...

Time for the 25th

Hopefully the 2nd. It comes way before the 25th.

Presidential lethargy, not Democratic obstinacy, is to blame

A statistical comparison of the nominations submitted by past presidents at this point

an hour ago

A statistical comparison of the nominations submitted by past presidents at this point

IT IS almost as if Republicans did not control both Congress and the White House. President Donald Trump has struggled to carry out one of his basic duties, which is to fill government posts. The president blames supposedly obstinate Senate Democrats, against whom he regularly rages on Twitter. “Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including Ambassadors. They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals”, he fumed on June 5th. “They can’t win so all they do is slow down & obstruct!”, he added on July 11th.

Mr Trump’s administration has yet to get around to nominating many of the officials who run the federal government. Up until July 15th, Mr Trump had put 210 names to the Senate for consideration, according to numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, a non-partisan group that tracks bureaucratic hiring. The data do not count military or judicial appointments. At the same point in their presidencies, Barack Obama had put forward 369 names, George W. Bush had 315 and Bill Clinton had 275.

It is true that the Senate has taken, on average, 45 days to confirm one of Mr Trump’s nominees compared with 37 days to confirm one of Mr Obama’s. That difference does not account for the vast discrepancy in confirmations—49 for Mr Trump compared with 203 for Mr Obama by July 2009. Part of the problem is that the majority of Mr Trump’s nominees were submitted in the past two months—while the Senate was consumed with a health-care bill to replace Obamacare.

Transitions of power are messy: a new administration must pick 4,000 new political appointees, nearly 1,200 of whom must be confirmed by the Senate. Neglecting to do so leaves hollowed-out agencies without critical staff. At the State Department only two of 26 senior posts have been filled. Twenty-two of the 24 unfilled posts, like under-secretary for arms control, do not yet have a nominee. Important ambassadorial postings, like in Saudi Arabia and South Korea, are unfilled. Things are only a little better at the Department of Defence, where just five of 18 senior posts have been filled.

Finance and economics

Free exchange

Take back control

When elites appear powerless to help, voters give populists a chance

WITH the defeat of Marine Le Pen in her bid for the French presidency, establishment politicians in rich countries breathed a sigh of relief. The fortunes of extremist candidates have faltered since the populist surge that put Donald Trump into the White House. But it is hard to be confident that this was populism’s high-water mark without a better understanding of what caused the swell in the first place. The most convincing explanations suggest that populist upswings are not in the past.

It is tempting to dismiss the rise of radicalism as an inevitable after-effect of the global financial crisis. Studies show that the vote shares of extreme parties, particularly on the right, tend to increase in the years after a crisis. The Depression spawned some of the 20th century’s most dangerous and radical populist movements. But the facts do not fit that story precisely. In Europe, for example, populist parties have steadily won more voters since the 1980s. What is more, populist rage is rarely focused on finance. Trade and immigration are more prominent targets. The clearest recent manifestations of the populist surge—Mr Trump’s victory and Brexit—have only an indirect link to the financial crisis.

Rival theories blame populism on deep cultural insecurities prompted by demographic and social change. In a forthcoming paper Noam Gidron and Peter Hall reckon that right-wing political success is built on a decline in the subjective social status of white men. Both economic hardship and relative improvements in the perceived status of other groups, such as women and racial minorities, seem to contribute to male insecurity. Around 2010 American women without a college degree overtook similarly educated men when both self-assessed their place in the social hierarchy. Men’s perception of their relative status has also fallen in Europe. The paper links declining status to support for right-wing populism. Yet this too seems only a partial explanation. The recent rise in left-wing populism has been just as striking.

A third explanation is captured neatly in a new paper by Dani Rodrik of Harvard University, who reckons that globalisation’s role cannot be ignored. He suggests that populism may become more attractive as global integration matures. Cutting tariffs by that extra little bit yields much smaller increases in GDP than previous reductions and delivers less perceptible consumer benefits; but such cuts continue to impose costs on vulnerable workers. Eventually this asymmetry produces a backlash.

The form it takes depends, however, on which sort of integration is the greatest local irritant. Frustration with trade and financial integration often breeds left-wing populism, which feeds off class divisions in society; Latin American populism tends to fall into this category. When immigration is seen as the source of disruption, right-wing populism, which exploits ethnic or religious divisions, is more common. In Europe, for example, populists have been far more hostile to the free movement of people than to open trade. But faced with both sorts of integration Europe has produced examples of each and America has sprouted competing left-wing and right-wing populist leaders.

These hypotheses are plausible (and compatible). But they are still incomplete. The rejection of established elites is perhaps the defining characteristic of a populist movement, yet what is not always clear is why mainstream parties should be so unresponsive in the face of discord. In another new paper, Luigi Guiso, Helios Herrera, Massimo Morelli and Tommaso Sonno provide a clever framework for answering that critical question. Establishment parties, they suggest, cannot respond to supporters’ concerns because of their respect for institutional constraints, like the rules of the European Union, or because of an unwillingness to break norms like repaying sovereign debt.

But keeping faith with institutions can mean letting down voters. When elected leaders fail to deliver hoped-for improvements, the public disengages. Depressed turnout is an opportunity for political entrepreneurs. Almost invariably, the authors argue, populists promise to relieve the stresses caused by institutional constraints. But the genre of populism depends on how turnout varies in some groups compared with others. If right-wing voters (such as older men) are less prone to sit out elections, then a populist candidate is more likely to be right-wing. Populist policies vary as a result: a left-wing firebrand might attack the budget strictures imposed by European institutions, whereas a right-winger might focus on ending free movement of labour.

If there is anything that unites the policies of Mr Trump with Brexit and the beliefs of European populists, it is a promise to break free of constraints. But a populist upswing propelled by unhappiness with established institutions raises an awkward question: if these institutions are worthwhile, why are people so frustrated by them? The authors argue that populists highlight the short-run advantages of wrecking institutions while downplaying the long-run consequences. That certainly describes the spendthrift recklessness of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. To some degree, “populism” is another word for heterodoxies that seem doomed to fail.

I demand satisfaction

Politicians are shackled by all manner of things—from international institutions and the whims of capital markets to ideological commitments to particular theories of economic growth. Such constraints are not always sensible—think of the unforgiving fetters of the gold standard, for example. But they are often valuable and working out which do more harm than good is rarely easy. Unhappy voters put all of them at risk, however. And if politicians cannot satisfy disenchanted citizens while operating within established limits, then institution-smashing populists will soon be on the march again.

i have no issues with the trans community. i know a few fines folks in that group. it does cost a ton of dough to transition though. should tax dollars be spent on that? who the fuck knows

We definitely should spend less tax money on Viagra for sure

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/the-military-spen...

All Trump is trying to do is fire up his base so he doesn't lose face when he fires their popular bigot, racist homophobe Sessions...

46 million? holy crap. that's a lot of low T soldiers. how aged is the military for christs sake.

why do i have to pay for their penis pills?

 POTUS' tweets don't pass muster with the Joint Chiefs 

There will be “no modifications” to the military’s transgender policy as a result of President Donald Trump’s declared ban on transgender men and women on Twitter, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said in a message to top military officers on Thursday -- the latest sign of the disarray following the commander-in-chief's abrupt announcement.

Joint Chiefs: 'No modifications' to transgender policy from Trump tweet - POLITICO
https://apple.news/ATQ8XlaFLTYmL8Zt4U_8ZFw

SQUIRREL!!