July 27, 2017

"The military’s policy permitting transgender individuals to serve remains in place, the country’s highest military officer said on Thursday..."

"... clarifying some of the confusion surrounding President Trump’s announcement on Twitter that transgender people would no longer be accepted or allowed in the military.... [T]he policy on who is allowed to serve will not change until the White House sends the Defense Department a rules change and the secretary of defense issues new guidelines."

The NYT reports.

I've been wary of the Trump = chaos template, but this is too chaotic for me.

196 comments:

Now Is the Time! said...

Althouse, I have appreciated your strong support of President Trump over the past two years...but you are wrong here.

Unknown said...

This is the military bureaucracy insisting on doing anything in writing in the proper order. It's rather the opposite of chaos.

Chuck said...

"This is the military bureaucracy insisting on doing anything in writing in the proper order. It's rather the opposite of chaos."

It may be a bunch of honorable men, who pride themselves on honor and reputation in a way that Donald Trump could never fathom, all saying, "This is bullshit. He says he consulted with us. He never consulted with us."

JohnAnnArbor said...

It's odd to not have it teed up, with some sense of what it means for present servicepeople, ahead of time. Announce now, details later....

rcocean said...

All that's happened is that Trump has announced his policy before the formal implementation.

Not surprising since Trump has only been POTUS for 6 months. All he needs to do is direct DoD Secretary to implement the policy - formally.

All this happened because some Republican liberals refused to go along with a budgetary amendment that would've have forbidden military from paying for sex change operations.

Really.

Rob said...

I'd think a direct order by telephone would suffice. He's their commander-in-chief, and we still have civilian control of the military.

David said...

Maybe he is nuts. I'm waiting for Scott Adams to explain to me why this is wrong.

The best rational explanation I can come up with is misdirection. Take minds off Russia. That seems to have happened for a few days.

If he really wants to address an issue that might affect readiness and performance, tackle the women in combat question. Transsexual eligibility is a minuscule sideshow.

And don't get out ahead of your generals unless there is a compelling reason to do so. And don't make generals look foolish. They do not like looking foolish, especially when they are not the actual fools.

rcocean said...

Why trump didn't tell his JCS and DoD Secretary FIRST, and then announce on twitter - I don't know.

Maybe the house budgetary vote was too soon to allow that.

If JSC is trying to obstruct Trump on this, they should be fired. We don't need some SJW commanding the Marine Corps.

I have a feeling the vast majority of military are cheering Trump. The ass-kissing, SJW Generals, not so much.

mockturtle said...

I wonder if Patton would have served in such an army.

David said...

I am reading about Grant. Again. He was the master of the written order. Models of clarity. Clarity is the reason why a written order is preferable when the option is available. Trump likes to avoid clarity for most purposes.

rcocean said...

If the Chairman of JCS refuses to implement Trump's order, look for liberals - who hate, hate, hate, the military - to make him the greatest hero since Eisenhower.

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse gently leads her readers towards the truth. This is going to be a long painful process.

Feste said...

Nothing chaotic about hard symmetries.

Bloomberg has it - “ Pentagon Pushes Back on Trump Changes to Transgender Policy.”

Bloomberg showing off his figurate extension (Bloomberg’s geometries bigger than Binary-Little Donny’s), Bloomberg pivoting neatly, keeping rotational symmetry with Five-Sided Big Boys v. wee-binary-mooch'n-trump.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/pentagon-pushes-back-on-trump-bid-to-change-transgender-policy

David said...

As usual the comments at NYT are unhinged. Even when they have a good case, the kennel dogs howl and exaggerate.

FullMoon said...

Huh> In comments on other post, it had not even been implemented yet.

traditionalguy said...

But now the voters know how this massive experimental snafu will end. And the serving military personnel do too. Trump just did his job to Command the Generals. Now it is their job to obey him or resign.

Bay Area Guy said...

It's not chaotic at all.

To solve Althouse's concern, you could simply 'grandfather in" all existing transsexuals, and say, we are not allowing any NEW transsexuals into the military.

Not hard at all.

It is amazing we have so much luxury in this country to have to wrestle with such non-problems. Can you imagine the folks at "Dunkirk" worrying about whether or not they had sufficient ratios of closeted gays and futures on the boats on which they escaped?

Fabi said...

Mattis put a six month hold on the implementation earlier this month. No new transgender recruits allowed during the review period -- if ever again. This was discussed on the earlier thread.

Steve said...

If the President had even hinted, to anyone, that a formal policy would be needed, the leaks would have been instantaneous, and the ultimate decision harder to support. Better to get the announcement over with and let the policy follow. No plans can remain confidential.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oh good. Free gender reassignment surgery is also back in place. Priorities!

wwww said...




It's a waste of time to think about unless and until it's an order.

Until that point it's just the DJT reality TV show presidency. He's said lots of stuff on twitter that he doesn't follow through on.

Fabi said...

I had no idea that the Pentagon could "push back" on their CIC. Good to know!

Earnest Prole said...

Wait, you mean to tell me Trump is not a king and cannot simply make a decree?

wwww said...



I am reading about Grant. Again. He was the master of the written order. Models of clarity. Clarity is the reason why a written order is preferable when the option is available. Trump likes to avoid clarity for most purposes.


The OR, Original Records of the War of the Rebellion, are on-line. Lots of examples of beautifully written orders by Grant and others. Perhaps DJT might consult for examples.

wwww said...



Why trump didn't tell his JCS and DoD Secretary FIRST, and then announce on twitter - I don't know.


That's a GREAT question. If you want to effectively implement a military order, what do you do?

DJT is using twitter for tactical reasons. What is his aim?

Unknown said...

Trump is chaotic, and I think it's intentional. The armed forces will implement whatever policy they're directed to implement. A tweet isn't a policy directive and the Chairman's statement isn't defiance or protest by any stretch of the imagination.

Kevin said...

I had no idea that the Pentagon could "push back" on their CIC. Good to know!

That's only until the next Dem takes office. Then we'll be back to how great it is to have civilian control of the military and how the Generals must act on the President's orders immediately, or it's treasonous.

Feste said...

Fabi said... I had no idea that the Pentagon could "push back" on their CIC. Good to know!

“The statement, which omitted any endorsement of the president’s policy, will at the least slow Trump’s announcement -- made in a series of three tweets -- that he ‘will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.’ It also indicated that the Pentagon would require the White House to define the parameters of the president’s decision, and suggested that the move is a distraction from the military’s effort to fight multiple conflicts around the world.”

Point wasn’t Pentagon. Bloomberg posturing. Silly rabbits.

Pinandpuller said...

Bay Area Guy

I think you mean grand person.

Unknown said...

(Is there a way to display my name when posting as Google Account?)

This might be the generals' way of objecting. It might equally be the generals saying "We're standing pat until someone tells us how to handle the details." Is Trump ordering them to discharge transgenders who are already in the military? Does it become something to test for in qualification physicals? Does it apply to cross-dressers who have no desire to ever alter their body? What about people who don't cross-dress as themselves but like to play the opposite gender when knowingly playing a part (acting, impromptu acting, live-action role-playing, serious Society for Creative Anachronism, etc.)? Or people who don't seek out those roles but are willing to play them? What about male-to-female transexuals who intend to get surgery AFTER their military career, since they don't want to be hormone-dependent while in the military?

It's the Secretary of Defense's job to answer these questions or at least give the generals enough guidance that they can fill in the details themselves.

Darrell said...

Donald Trump is providing cover to the honorable men who don't want their name attached to shitcanning Obama's misguided social engineering policy.

Drago said...

LLR: "It may be a bunch of honorable men..."

Lol

Chuck, pretending he has it within himself to imagine what honorable service members think!

Stick to praising the left MSM-ers there LLR. You appear to have a great ability to channel their thinking!

Pinandpuller said...

Bay Area Guy

Women, MTW trannies and children first!

Darrell said...

There are no phantom menses in a foxhole.

Drago said...

BDarrell: "Donald Trump is providing cover to the honorable men who don't want their name attached to shitcanning Obama's misguided social engineering policy."

Precisely.

And the lefties/Chuck's want to drag those officers up and drag them into a social/political war and endanger their careers and families.

Just as they attack spouses and children.

Good for Trump that he acted and took the heat off those Officers who have more important work to do than get attacked by the left/LLR's.

Fabi said...

Exactly right, Kevin. I agree with Keste that it's also Bloomberg's (incorrect) interpretation.

Pinandpuller said...

Congress could give Trump's tweets the same force as an EO could they not?

JohnAnnArbor said...

Donald Trump is providing cover to the honorable men who don't want their name attached to shitcanning Obama's misguided social engineering policy.

Interesting idea. Makes sense, as it lines up with the way he thinks.

Congress could give Trump's tweets the same force as an EO could they not?

Let's not do that, 'k?

Feste said...

Unknown said...

Yes. Fair options. By the numbers. Other commenters here too. Nothing too new. Lincoln set a limit on the number of times McClellan ‘exercised’ his horses. One down. Truman sent MaCarthur’s ratings sky high. One up.

tcrosse said...

BDarrell: "Donald Trump is providing cover to the honorable men who don't want their name attached to shitcanning Obama's misguided social engineering policy."

Exactly. It's Trump's job to take the political heat, not the Joint Chiefs.

Fabi said...

These are the same honorable men that Chuck wanted to drag in front of Congress for a show trial.

Mark said...

Trump is failing yet again to follow through on his health care promises, so he tweets a distraction and you take it hook line and sinker.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Naaah, you love it. Compassion wins! Rainbows and hearts and unicorns all around.

The nice, smart people get to laugh at idiot blustery President Trump showing what a hateful bigot he is. The nice sympathetic transgender people who desperately want to join the military--of whom there are apparently tons--get to join up and have us pay for their treatment and care. The non-transgender members of the military who get to serve with those fine folks--folks who we all agree have a MUCH higher incidence of suicide attempts, mental problems, etc--well, things maybe don't look so great for them. But honestly, who gives a fuck about non-transgender (and probably non-gay) servicemembers anyway?
It's not nice, you see? Nice people want sympathetic people to be treated well. Nice people don't give a fuck about non-sympathetic people, and we all learned that people in the military who think allowing transgender people to serve is a bad idea (costly, harmful to efficiency, and dangerous) are not sympathetic.

Kevin said...

Trump likes to avoid clarity for most purposes.

I think his Tweet was pretty clear what the policy was going to be. It's up to the Pentagon to implement it.

Unlike Obama, he's not a micromanager. He's not going to sit down with the Joint Chiefs and review their highly-detailed implementation plans. He didn't need to review the gantt charts and weigh in on how it was all to be done before he could announce the policy.

A decision needed to be made. He made it. He will expect it to be carried out.

We created the New Deal this way. We won two world wars this way. Three, if you count the collapse of the USSR.

We micromanaged ourselves right into a defeat in Vietnam. We blew $800B in stimulus arguing about the definition of "shovel ready".

Trump is trying to get Washington off of its bloated, sedentary ass. Let's go people! We've got lots to do!

Pinandpuller said...

Darell

The Phantom Menses would have been a better Star Wars movie. Or a really bad porn parody.

Swede said...

Jesus, you people.

This is so simple. The Army doesn't run on Tweets.

The President tweeted that a change is occurring.

Until that change occurs, in the form of a policy, then the current policy stands.

Difficult to comprehend, I know.

Rabel said...

"this is too chaotic for me."

If you need to go out for a walk to get away from all the chaos, the men will be glad to stay here and handle this for you.

But you're strong, so I'm sure you'll persist.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

At least, that used to be true. I took that to mean, in part, that things are tough enough without our doing things to make them tougher for ourselves.
I'm not sure there's anyone who truly believes adding transgender people to the military will make the military's core job (killing people and breaking their shit) easier. I'm pretty sure even people who believe we should add transgenders understand that doing so is an additional burden for the military.
It's just that, in weighing the costs, the transgenders win. They're a sympathetic group! How dare you want to take away their free healthcare! How dare you want to treat their very serious mental health conditions as what they plainly are--a potential danger for everyone? That's not NICE, and we must above all be NICE.
When people aren't NICE then voters get upset. It offends voters to see sympathetic people not treated sympathetically. We must therefore build our policies and structure our lives around making sure we always appear to be NICE to the right people, no matter the cost.

Howard said...

If there is any reason the Trans Cluster Fuck was a smokescreen, this is it:
Wm Browder Russia Testimony
He fingers Trump and Clinton, perhaps this is why Dems blocked his yesterday.
Dems Block Fusion GPS Witness

Nyamujal said...

"Maybe he is nuts. I'm waiting for Scott Adams to explain to me why this is wrong."

Scoot Adams on this: "blah, blah master persuader blah blah blah confirmation bias blah blah" and on and on he'll go on for an hour in his annoying monotone peppering his argument with egregious moral pronouncements and easy to spot logical fallacies.

bgates said...

Can you imagine the folks at "Dunkirk" worrying about whether or not they had sufficient ratios of closeted gays and futures on the boats on which they escaped?

Women and children first!
...
No, Stevens, obviously I don't mean to restrict that category to so-called "biological" or "cis" women. You can board straightaw - right away, there's a good chap-er, a good...good, good.
...
Abdullah, we've been over this before: You've explained your birth certificate was lost when you fled the Vichy government in Damascus. That's good enough for headquarters, so it's good enough for me. You can board with the children, with the rest of the 18 year olds.
...
Yes, your children may board too.
...
Yes, so can their children.

Real American said...

Obama loaded up the Pentagon with a bunch of snot-nosed campaign hacks and put them in positions once reserved for deserving military personnel. He made sure having common sense on this type of issue in the military was punished. So many good military people quit when Obama was president, partly for this type of thing. PC bullshit is rewarded. Common sense isn't. There should be ZERO trannies in the military.

Having this type of surgery/therapy is 100% purely elective and made by lunatics being abused by their doctors and activists with an evil agenda. The procedures should be banned and the lunatics who have them are not fit for military service. Period.

If California can ban gay conversion therapy then any other state or the Federal Government can ban tranny surgery. These people are mentally ill and need help - real help - but denying biological reality isn't going to help them. They need help coming to grips with who they are body-parts wise, not turned into circus freaks. And the rest of us should stop enabling their sicknesss.

And I can't believe so many gays and lesbians want to be lumped in these insaniacs. The difference is being gay isn't some sort of mental illness, right? RIGHT? These are NOT the same issues. That they would align themselves with the mentally ill no longer makes sense, if it ever did.

Pinandpuller said...

I like my soldiers to not have fake vaginas, ok?

Pinandpuller said...

Swede

We understand the difference between a trailer and a movie.

Trump tweets coming attractions.

Fabi said...

I wouldn't call them fake, Pinandpuller -- I've heard they get a fleshlight implanted.

Feste said...

HoodlumDoodlum said... Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. ... I took that to mean, in part, that things are tough enough without our doing things to make them tougher for ourselves.”

Readers' pov. All's fair.

To me - it means “kick-ass” while you have daylight to do it.

Wear night vision goggles with infrared after sundown when we let it all hang out.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It's a matter of optics, you see? The Media will put any number of seemingly well-adjusted transgenders in front of cameras to talk about how much they want to serve, how insulting it is to be denied the ability to serve, etc. They're SYMPATHETIC and nice people will weep at that sad story and yell at the mean ol' men who hurt the nice transgenders' feelings. How dare they!

The Media won't ever cover the people who will be hurt by this policy. The people who will have to wait longer for health care because money's being spent on fixing Private Pat's privates. The people who get less training than they should because their unit's schedule is fucked up because Private Pat's on medical leave for another month or two. The people who have to go short-handed in a war zone because Private Pat had another mental breakdown and had to be shipped home. The people who give up a day of CQB training to sit through another lecture on transgender acceptance and how to avoid sexual harassment and then get killed 'cause some hajii doesn't care how woke you are, just how dead he can make you.
See? No: you won't see, because that will never be the story. The people who will bear the cost of this decision aren't sympathetic, so the nice centrist people like Professor Althouse don't care about them.

Michael K said...

"The ass-kissing, SJW Generals, not so much."

Rcocean and Kevin have it right.

Trust no one above O-6, They are all politicians especially if they were chosen by Obama.

The war fighters are already on board. Bloomberg is still trying to ban guns.

Henry said...

I had no idea that the Pentagon could "push back" on their CIC. Good to know!

If ya don't know, now ya know

* * *

I do think the Trump as shiny foil hypothesis is worth examining. He doesn't even have to know that he's a distraction and it works.

But it's worth remembering, conservatives, that he's distracting you too.

$8M savings for excluding transgender service members pales in comparison to the $3.2B the Trump administration attempted to pull from Veteran's unemployment benefits.

That idea will not go forward in Congress, but remember that it was the Trump administration that proposed it.

Drago said...

Henry: "That idea will not go forward in Congress, but remember that it was the Trump administration that proposed it."

We'll place it right next to the corpses of the veterans who died while waiting for treatment at the VA during the obama admin.

Of course, we know which issue will be of more concern to the media/lefties/"lifelong republicans".

Kevin said...

Scoot Adams on this: "blah, blah master persuader blah blah blah confirmation bias blah blah"

No, this kind of thing happens all the time in dynamic, well-run organizations.

Mattis had six months (until July 1) to figure this out. In dealing with ISIS, Iran, and North Korea putting Seattle in range of a nuclear attack, he didn't have time.

Mattis then gave himself a six month extension.

One month in, he's still dealing with ISIS, Iran, and North Korea putting even more of the West Coast in range of a nuclear attack.

Trump says to him, "You really don't have time for this, do you? If we're going to get to January and you're going to give yourself another six months, it's clear to me what we need to do. So l'm going to help you out. Your lack of progress is all the recommendation I need. It's more important that you spend your scarce time on ISIS, Iran, and North Korea so I'm relieving you of Ash Carter's little welcome present that he didn't have the balls to take on himself.

I'll issue the order. When the Joint Chiefs get the order - all appointed by Obama, most last year - we'll find out which ones can walk and chew gum at the same time. The Marine, of course. The Navy guy is pretty sharp. The rest, who knows?

Have a nice vacation. And get some rest. You're going to need it."

Kevin said...

Speeding up the decision process always looks like "chaos" to those who are not keeping up.

Pinandpuller said...

Didn't a few good men put on dresses to try and escape The Titanic?

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
These are the same honorable men that Chuck wanted to drag in front of Congress for a show trial.


They might just be begging for that opportunity. Clear their names, from the Trump shitshow.
No matter what, it is just nuts that the Trump Administration couldn't provide a simple, clear, plain English description of who was involved in reaching the decision, from a military and "expert" standpoint.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It may be a bunch of honorable men, who pride themselves on honor and reputation in a way that Donald Trump could never fathom, all saying, "This is bullshit. He says he consulted with us. He never consulted with us."

It's not. I mean, anything MAY BE anything else, but it's not. It's professionals giving an accurate report of the actual situation and accurately describing the way actual policy and regulations are changed.

A person who calls themselves a LifeLongRepublican may be a goat fucking weirdo, you know, but it'd be stupid to say "until you can definitely prove you're not a goat fucking weirdo we're all going to assume you are." That'd be stupid, and I'm sure no one on this forum is stupid enough to argue in that manner.

Drago said...

Kevin: "Mattis had six months (until July 1) to figure this out."

Mattis needed about 1.4 milliseconds to "figure this out".

All the rest is about providing political cover to protect the officers from the lunatic lefties/"lifelong republicans".

Pinandpuller said...

If you tried to pass for a lad back in the day The Royal Navy would still take you because buggery knows no gender.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

They might just be begging for that opportunity. Clear their names, from the Trump shitshow.

Might be, may be, could be...
I might have been wrong: some people here could be stupid enough to argue that something that could possibly be true should be considered true until proven untrue.
By that logic, of course, it's at least equally likely that anyone claiming to be a LifeLongRepublican is a goat fucking weirdo...probably also someone who fantasizes about assaulting women, or something, too. I mean, until any given LifeLongRepublican can prove they're NOT a goat fucking woman assault fantasizing weirdo it might be true, right?

Drago said...

LLR: "They might just be begging for that opportunity."

Yes, of course they are. They can't wait to bring an end to their careers if the lefties/"lifelong republicans" are successful in bringing the dems back to power in 2020.

And they can't wait to make themselves the face of this policy with which they agree for the throngs of lunatic lefties/"lifelong republicans" who will have their families attacked socially and potentially physically.

Chuck, who almost joined the military but didn't because "no draft" and the rest of the Maddow Brigade can't wait to find out.

Well, guess what, you aren't going to get that chance.

Every officer called up for a Chuck-dem-wrongthink showtrial should simply say I am required to follow the orders of my civilian superiors and that is what I am doing.

Period.

Don't give Chuck and the lunatics the ability to attack the officers and their families.

Pinandpuller said...

Fabi

I don't see a requisition for an m69 personal member fastener.

SukieTawdry said...

This is one of the reasons I would have preferred the announcement being made by Gen. Mattis.

Drago said...

Sukie: "This is one of the reasons I would have preferred the announcement being made by Gen. Mattis."

Not a chance.

Mattis is doing enough and does not need this even though the left and their LLR allies would love to put targets on the backs of any officer who stands athwart the coming lefty/LLR utopia.

Feste said...

Pinandpuller said... If you tried to pass for a lad back in the day The Royal Navy would still take you because buggery knows no gender.

Turing Test has been passed. Neural nets next. May need (likely) programming for gender specific scans. Devil in the details. Change a small detail in the data set - buggery.

SukieTawdry said...

Didn't a few good men put on dresses to try and escape The Titanic?

There was at least one who pretended to be a woman to get a lifeboat seat, but I don't think he was wearing a dress. Most of the male passengers who survived were from steerage. They eschewed the gentlemen's code, didn't follow orders and did whatever was necessary to get themselves and their people off that boat.

Sebastian said...

"[T]he policy on who is allowed to serve will not change until the White House sends the Defense Department a rules change and the secretary of defense issues new guidelines." This is not inherently confusing: 1. T announces policy change, 2. WH transmits new policy, 3. DoD changes policy--between 1. and 2. old policy remains in place.

But it may be practically confusing, if 1. the WH assumed tweeting the change was the change (stupid), and 2. if the "old policy" is in fact unclear, since O's move called for implementation after his departure and Mattis apparently delayed it (is there in fact a "policy"?).

Fabi said...

A statement from the CIC is not a shit show, Chuck. You clearly don't know a single flag officer or you wouldn't make such ludicrous assertions.

Fabi said...

I forgot the correct military nomenclature, Pinandpuller!

Jason said...

BS. The commander's intent is clear. It's more than enough to roll with and get the 80percent solution done while you awaits few RFIs from the head shed. It's not the National Command Authority's job to write personnel regulation manuals for the DoD.

Michael K said...

All the rest is about providing political cover to protect the officers from the lunatic lefties/"lifelong republicans".

Yes.

The Royal Navy would still take you because buggery knows no gender.

We settled that, Gays are OK.

This is the recruitment of crazy people. Maybe we could convince the Iranians or North Koreans to do this.

Did you read about the "Tailhook investigation" that gutted Navy flying for a decade ?

Here is a little of that sad tale.

A Navy board of inquiry cleared Stumpf of misconduct in 1993, and the next year a panel of Navy officials chose him for promotion to captain. The Senate confirmed his nomination, but Navy officials realized later they had failed to tell the Senate Armed Services Committee about Stumpf's Tailhook involvement.

Navy Secretary John H. Dalton then took Stumpf's name off the promotion list. But earlier this year another Navy panel reselected him for captain. Dalton, however, delayed sending Stumpf's name to Capitol Hill for confirmation, saying he wanted to take a "fresh look" at Stumpf's history.

Stumpf's lawyer, Charles Gittins, said his client decided to retire after a three-hour interrogation by a Navy attorney June 13 that was "very confrontational. . . . They'd made up their mind" against Stumpf. A Navy official denied that charge, saying the process was designed to "fully answer questions not answered before," in order to prepare for a congressional review that the Navy expected to be grueling.

Several members of the Senate committee -- including some who are pro-military, such as Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and its chairman, Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) -- have expressed extreme skepticism about Stumpf's nomination.


The Navy was as cowardly as the JCS that Obama installed. That was Clinton time. Then the Democrat Senate.

Pinandpuller said...

Trump is saving brave and patriotic face tattoo guys who want to serve till his second term.

SukieTawdry said...

I'm not sure Mattis would agree with you, Drago. He was not the least bit reticent about announcing the delay in implementation because it required additional study. At that moment, I think we all knew the policy was doomed. And rightfully so. The training manuals being developed bordered on lunacy.

I'm with Ann. I don't like chaos in government, particularly not designed chaos.

hombre said...

Trump knows tweets don't set policy for the military or anyone else. He also knows the bedwetters overreact to his tweets.

It's fair to assume he was offering bed-wetting Obot generals a chance to show their stuff for future reference. It's another great illustration of the depth of the swamp. It's about the swamp, not Trump and the trannies.

And the Althouse bedwetters also don't disappoint. LOL.

Chuck said...

Don't give Chuck and the lunatics the ability to attack the officers and their families.

You miserable fucking lunatic. I said that I support a military ban on transgenders. Why would I "attack" a military officer who also supported it?

I wouldn't want to attack them for this; what I would want to ask them is, "Who did Trump consult on this? He said he consulted generals and experts. Who were they?" The reason I want to ask that is not to embarrass the officers. It's a simple question for them. The real reason I want to ask them about that is to embarrass Trump.

Do you think that Trump can implement this policy on his own, without anyone in the military signing on to it?

Your stupidity sometimes amazes me. Stupidity on a level I could never have imagined.

Michael K said...

Stumpf's "misconduct" was being in a hotel room before, not during, some drunken chick did a striptease.

Some of the women, including the one who complained, were active duty women and were drunk too.

The complainer had earlier licked champaign from a guy's belly button.

Fabi said...

Announcing the delayed implementation is much less of an issue than the removal of the policy, SukieTawdry. An implementation delay is fairly innocent; changing it not so, in this case.

Michael K said...

Idiot chuck:

Do you think that Trump can implement this policy on his own, without anyone in the military signing on to it?

Yes, next question. If you mean write the regs, that's not his job.

Henry said...

Drago wrote: We'll place it right next to the corpses of the veterans who died while waiting for treatment at the VA during the obama admin.

It's basically the same issue. If a president is elected to fix a system, he should focus his attention on what is actually broken.

Darrell said...

The champagne of bottled tears? Election night Nov. 8th, 2016.

Darrell said...

I love Trump's Tweets, FB posts, and emails. I'd rather read/hear his words directly than have them scented with Media stink.

wwww said...



I don't understand why people are reacting, on all sides. It's a "squirrel!" that was sent out for people to chase.

It won't effect 99.999% of people. & it's not clear what the new "policy" (if there is a new policy) is.

Does it mean people who have ever cross-dressed when off-base are ineligible? Does it mean someone who wants an operation is ineligible? Does it mean someone who is a true hermaphrodite, with a uterus & internal ovaries + testes is ineligible? Does it mean what's his name on MASH could have gotten out of service in Korea by picking up a purse & a dress? Does it mean anyone with a XXY or YYX is ineligible? Is the military going to do genetic testing on recruits? I dunno, and neither does DJT, because the policy is unclear.

What might effect people are issues like North Korea, taxes, health care.

This was never a actual issue in the real world & honestly don't get the emotional reactions.

wwww said...



btw: If someone can get out of a deployment by carrying around a purse or putting on a dress -- that's going to be an issue.

"Hey, my wife is pregnant with our first child and I don't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea. Let's go shopping for a purse."

That MASH guy isn't the first one to try it.

hombre said...

Sukie Tawdry: "I'm with Ann. I don't like chaos in government, particularly not designed chaos."

Trump is facing resistance bordering on sedition from Democrats, in and out of the deep state, the media, the GOPe and some of his own cabinet officers.

As the swamp fights back, chaos is unavoidable. The resistance, not Trump, is the cause. Despite the corruption of the media, he isn't doing a bad job of making that clear.

He needs a nasty, aggressive Attorney General at his back, not Sessions the pussy and not a bunch of flacks.

Chuck said...

wwww said...
...
What might effect people are issues like North Korea, taxes, health care.

And so, with tax reform awaiting resolution of health care reform, and with health care reform hanging in the balance (and with North Korea readying another missile test)...

Trump goes to West Virgina and Ohio for campaign-style rallies, and Tweets about transgenders in the military.

See what's wrong with that picture?

Michael K said...

"Hey, my wife is pregnant with our first child and I don't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea. Let's go shopping for a purse."

I guess you missed my earlier comment that 25% of women crew members on ships during Gulf War I, which was the first time women were given ship's crew jobs in combat zones, got pregnant during the deployment.

The men who had to double up on jobs were less happy than the girls who got to go home.

SukieTawdry said...

"Private Pat." That's perfect, HoodlumDoodlum.

Michael K said...

"See what's wrong with that picture?"

Nothing. They call it "The Bully Pulpit."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Wait, you mean to tell me Trump is not a king and cannot simply make a decree?"

-- And I thought presidents had a pen and a phone!

hombre said...

Henry: "It's basically the same issue. If a president is elected to fix a system, he should focus his attention on what is actually broken."

Get up to speed on what Trump's man at the VA has done. He is fixing "broken."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Congress could give Trump's tweets the same force as an EO could they not?"

-- In no way is that a good idea.

SukieTawdry said...

Even draining a swamp can be done in a methodical way. All this drama is giving me a headache. It's not necessary. Trump is at his best and most effective when he's not being a drama queen.

Matthew Sablan said...

"No matter what, it is just nuts that the Trump Administration couldn't provide a simple, clear, plain English description of who was involved in reaching the decision, from a military and "expert" standpoint."

-- I thought that was the point of Executive Privilege?

hombre said...

Hey, Chuck. It's Trump vs. the Swamp. Who do you support? Really.

Pinandpuller said...

When I was growing up there was a legendary guy who lived in the next town. Just a normal family man with a wife, two kids and a closet full of dresses he wore in public.

I put him in the same column as Bigfoot: Lots of sightings-zero confirmation personally.

Many years later I'm working for a uniform company and I was delivering overalls to a power plant. As I pushed a cart thru the men's locker room I noticed dozens of white hard hats hung up on the wall...and one pink one.

It seems like when genders distinctions are basically meaningless some still feel the need to stand out.

I would have opted for sexy lingerie from VS under my coveralls-but I'm not mentally ill.

Bob Ellison said...

I gotcher Constitutional crisis right here.

Delayna said...

Well, if the Duranty Daily Bullshit says it, it must be true!

hombre said...

"Even draining a swamp can be done in a methodical way. All this drama is giving me a headache. It's not necessary."

I recommend you look at who is supporting him and who is opposing him, check the odds, then rethink what "methodical" has to look like.

EDH said...

Trump makes total sense to me on this:

1.) Float idea of policy change that is most upsetting to your enemies and responsive to your base.

2.) See the reaction and the correlation of forces arrayed on all sides.

3.) Now understanding the correlation of forces, make your formal policy declaration.

4.) Choose a formal policy that is reasoned and has the most support.

5.) Let your enemies prove him right (e.g., Lady GaGa highlighting trans suicide rates) as well as their own extremism in reflexively opposing his popular final policy.

Kevin said...

"Blogger SukieTawdry said...
Even draining a swamp can be done in a methodical way."

Not until you know the size, shape and depth. Until then you've got to throw a lot of rocks into it to measure the response.

Unknown said...

I can't wait for Chuck's show trial of the generals. "General, what did you know and when did you know it? Were you aware that Trump was a bigot? You weren't aware of that? Let's cashier you now!

Admiral, will you stand up to the bigot Trump and disobey your commander in chief? If not, why are you a bigot? Remember, you must refuse his direct order or you are a bigot! And we know where your wife and children are!"

Yep, I'm sure Chuck cannot wait to put the generals and admirals under oath and ask them to defy Trump or else. Or maybe ask them to overthrow Trump... for the good of the country, of course.

--Vance

Pinandpuller said...

Could this be a false fag operation?

Fabi said...

"Do you think that Trump can implement this policy on his own, without anyone in the military signing on to it?"

Maybe you shouldn't opine on this topic if you have to ask that question.

Drago said...

"Do you think that Trump can implement this policy on his own, without anyone in the military signing on to it?"

Lol

Pinandpuller said...

I thought liberals hated the less than one percent of one percent.

ELC said...

Wow! There's a protocol to follow for changing rules officially. Who knew?

Drago said...

Just wait until Trump stumps for Kid Rock in Michigan.

Chuck is going to have to triple up on his Stabenow t-shirts, grab a gallon of Rocky road ice cream and binge watch Maddow to recover!

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
I can't wait for Chuck's show trial of the generals. "General, what did you know and when did you know it? Were you aware that Trump was a bigot? You weren't aware of that? Let's cashier you now!

Admiral, will you stand up to the bigot Trump and disobey your commander in chief? If not, why are you a bigot? Remember, you must refuse his direct order or you are a bigot! And we know where your wife and children are!"

Yep, I'm sure Chuck cannot wait to put the generals and admirals under oath and ask them to defy Trump or else. Or maybe ask them to overthrow Trump... for the good of the country, of course.

That isn't even close to my intention or my goal.

I would not expect to ask the generals to "defy" Trump. Exactly how many freaking times do I have to say that I rather like the idea of a transgender ban for the military?

No, I would not expect the generals to "defy" Trump. I would expect that the generals would all answer truthfully and say that they don't know what President Trump was talking about, when he said he consulted his generals, and experts, before Tweeting out about the ban.

It wouldn't even have to get that far. Because way before then, I would have asked the White House for a list of all of the meeting dates, times and lists of attendees, for the president's meetings on transgender issues. That list would narrow down which generals might need to answer questions.

traditionalguy said...

In analytical thought, this trigger was pulled too early before the orders were cut.

Which means there is a reason DJT wanted an immediate scramble of the MSM
Idiots as a diversion from something. But what?

Pinandpuller said...

Mathew Sabian

Why not? The robot with the pen that Obama used to sign bills could just be a midget who is really good at chess.

Pinandpuller said...

How about congress can submit no bills longer than 140 characters?

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Just wait until Trump stumps for Kid Rock in Michigan.

So you're saying that Trump would stomp on his own campaign co-chair in the state GOP primary?

https://lenaforsenate.com/

What a repulsive ingrate you must think that Trump is; to turn his back on someone who was loyal to him, for the sake of celebrity.

Darrell said...

I would have asked the White House for a list of all of the meeting dates, times and lists of attendees, for the president's meetings on transgender issues. That list would narrow down which generals might need to answer questions

Here's a quick answer--go fuck yourself! Go "try" yourself and opt for a death sentence.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

"So you're saying that Trump would stomp on his own campaign co-chair in the state GOP primary?"

Only one republican will emerge from the primary and will be supported by Trump against your beloved Stabenow.

Better stock up on ice cream and MSM subscriptions.

You are going to need it.

Jason said...

. Chuck. Trump will campaign for Kid Rock if he wins the primary.

Were you born this obtuse or did you have to take lessons?

Pinandpuller said...

Theoretically I can put my leg behind my head. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

themightypuck said...

I really have no opinion on transgender in military. It just seems funny to me that no transgender in the military is pretty much the status quo until ten seconds ago and going back to it is chaos.

Chuck said...

Okay, well Drago the candidate that I'll be supporting is former Chief Justice Robert Young. He is a declared, organized, well-funded candidate for the GOP senate nomination. I have nothing but contempt for Democrat Debbie Stabenow.


Jason said...

Chuck.

Do you think that Trump can implement this policy on his own, without anyone in the military signing on to it?

Yes.

Your stupidity sometimes amazes me. Stupidity on a level I could never have imagined.

mikeski said...

How about congress can submit no bills longer than 140 characters?

And suddenly, all our laws are written in Chinese.

Darrell said...

What do you think about a President that tells the American people that a YouTube video is solely responsible for the Egyptian/Benghazi terror attacks and the death of an American Ambassador along with support staff?

Nothing, apparently. No Inquisition of personal data and people spoken, too. No fucking nothing.

Freeman Hunt said...

Medical conditions that can disqualify one from military service.

Drago said...

Jason: "Were you born this obtuse or did you have to take lessons?"

You'll find our LLR friend exhibits all the rhetorical habits and techniques of a typical Lefty troll.

Unexpectedly.

Kevin said...

"I would not expect to ask the generals to "defy" Trump. Exactly how many freaking times do I have to say that I rather like the idea of a transgender ban for the military?"

Oh. Chuck thinks the media and Dems in Congress won't demagogue the issue or play it to partisan advantage. They won't push the brass for personal opinions - knowing that they're Obama appointees - or ask what could have been done had Trump not blocked them from doing it? And they won't follow it up with hearings with trans service members who will state how little accommodation they required. He thinks none of them will recount how blacks and gays were once barred and how we've fallen since Obama left office.

In other words, Chuck seems to think this won't turn into a circus in a town filled with acrobats and clowns.

gadfly said...

Ann, Trump does equal chaos because he creates it. All of this fake news and disloyal underlings and criminal opposition candidates starts when his easily abused ego is set off by a news story - and he absolutely has to get his news from television because he doesn't read anything or pay attention in meetings. The latest fiasco occurred because Trump tweeted that transgenders where now banned from the military, a not really terrible thing because draftees were often rejected for flat feet. But the Media knows how to control Trump by sending him off on yet another ego-bending trip.

Mix in his juvenile use of twitter and too many ego-satisfying rallies and you get more of the same craziness. Trump blames everyone but family for the disruptive life he leads. Some day Rush, Sean, Fox News and all those Trump supporters who like rude politicians will wake up to understand Trump's sickness. In the meantime you will hear about it from me.

Gahrie said...

What a repulsive ingrate you must think that Trump is; to turn his back on someone who was loyal to him, for the sake of celebrity.

This is exactly the type of comment that makes me believe that Chuckles might really be a lifelong Republican and member of the GOP Establishment...this is how they think...."How dare you support someone not chosen by leadership?" Service is rewarded with patronage.

Yet give them total control of the government and nothing gets done.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Okay, well Drago the candidate that I'll be supporting is former Chief Justice Robert".........zzzzzzzzz

Sorry, I fell asleep before getting to the end of that line.

Yes I'm sure Mr Young is precisely the milquetoast, boring, happy to lose in a polite way candidate you seek to improve Stabenows chances.

hombre said...

In a nutshell, why it's important to support Trump:

https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/26/great-again/

Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

I wonder if this is enough chaos for Althouse to find 'too chaotic'.

Jives said...

"And I can't believe so many gays and lesbians want to be lumped in these insaniacs. The difference is being gay isn't some sort of mental illness, right? RIGHT? These are NOT the same issues. That they would align themselves with the mentally ill no longer makes sense, if it ever did."

a lot of us gays and lesbians are really dismayed by this focus and the "lumping in" which inevitably occurs. When I was much younger, it seemed that attraction to my own sex somehow correlated with the idea of transgenderism. Some aspect of me must be female orientated, if I'm attracted to men, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong. I grew up, I studied, I learned more about the world and the people in it, and that "transgender" idea about myself pretty much evaporated. I think, look, and behave like a man, 100% for better or worse. I think all this stuff is psycho-sexual in origin. I don't believe in genetic homosexuality, I think these preferences are formed very early in life (so early as to be nearly indistinguishable from inborn traits), infant/toddler stage, and are reinforced by various feedback loops which eventually coalesce in a person's orientation.

I want to tell these gender-confused folks to just chill out, grow up, focus on getting a skill, being useful in the world as it is. Some of these feelings may just work themselves out, or you may find another passion in your life that makes these gender concerns seem small. I do see the transgender condition as originating in dysmorphia and histrionic personality disorders. That's not a reason to revile them, of course, but it does seem to call for the establishment of boundaries in incorporating such people into the military, or other high-performance establishment.

Transgender and gay are NOT versions of the same thing, nor do they even inhabit the same continuum.

Drago said...

"In other words, Chuck seems to think this won't turn into a circus in a town filled with acrobats and clowns."

On the contrary, he knows it would.

And that's precisely what he wants.

Howard said...

C'mon Drago, don't be so hard on the Beaver. Chuck is the opposite of a troll, he is an uber earnest ideologue writing meticulously crafted essays. You guys are trolling him bigly, which is just not fair. Don't make me play the evil card, I know how sensitive you new-agers are.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
What a repulsive ingrate you must think that Trump is; to turn his back on someone who was loyal to him, for the sake of celebrity.

This is exactly the type of comment that makes me believe that Chuckles might really be a lifelong Republican and member of the GOP Establishment...this is how they think...."How dare you support someone not chosen by leadership?" Service is rewarded with patronage.

Yet give them total control of the government and nothing gets done.

I am not talking about anyone who was "chosen by leadership." "Leadership" hasn't "chosen" anyone. There is going to be a primary election, in which I expect that there will be few party endorsements.

What I was talking about was the simple loyalty that a national figure like Trump might owe, to his own campaign co-chair in Michigan. Why would Trump insert himself into a contested primary on behalf of someone like Kid Rock, over his own co-chair in the state.

And mostly, what I was thinking was that the Kid Rock/Trump fanboyz from across the nation wouldn't even fucking know Michigan Republican Party politics to have an informed view on what was really happening here. That you were all just too stupid to even get beyond the celebrity of Trump, and the celebrity of Kid Rock.

hombre said...

gadfly: "Some day Rush, Sean, Fox News and all those Trump supporters who like rude politicians will wake up to understand Trump's sickness. In the meantime you will hear about it from me."

Speaking of sickness....

Drago said...

"Don't make me play the evil card, I know how sensitive you new-agers are."

One more word out of you Howard and I'm breaking out the "special" crystals...

Kevin said...

So this is chaos?

"We refer all questions about the president's statements to the White House," said Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis in a statement. "We will continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the commander in chief on transgender individuals serving in the military. We will provide revised guidance to the department in the near future."

Looks like an orderly-functioning government to me.

iowan2 said...

This is all meaningless. Transgenders can serve. The military is not going to enable their mental illness. Females are females, and males are males. Period. The military refuse admittance to serve all the time for reasons of unfitness to serve. Enlisting and demanding 100 of hours of psychological counseling, is not showing up fit to serve. It's not the money, its the special treatment. No other malady that required that much attention would be allowed, in the military.

As to President Trumps tweets, as has been pointed out, President Trump, comes from business, he hires people to flesh out details. If I give one of by people a desired outcome, I mostly don't care how it comes about. If the person comes back to me with pages of questions, I would give them 2 days to come to me with a written plan to achieve the assigned task. I dont do details. Most successful people dont.

Drago said...

Chuck: "And mostly, what I was thinking was that the Kid Rock/Trump fanboyz from across the nation wouldn't even fucking know Michigan Republican Party politics to have an informed view on what was really happening here."

Lol

Easily the most ironic and unwittingly hilarious thing written on Althouse in the last 6 months!

Thanks Chuck. That's a real keeper!

You perfectly channel the supposed superiority but actual inferiority f thought by all your lefty man heroes.

Magnificent!

Howard said...

Thanks ARM. The real House of Cards is better than the Neflix version.
Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.”
reminds me of Frank Underwood (DJT) and Marty Spinella (Mooch) the union guy. Probably what Mooch's job interview was like
FU versus Marty

Khesanh 0802 said...

i have a hypothetical for all you lawyers - and others - out there. Here goes:

You are 1st squad leader in the 1st platoon of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines. Your platoon is scheduled to assault an enemy position on Hill 881 on Wednesday at first light, today is Monday. Scheduled to fire a prep fire, and fire in support of your assault is Whiskey Battery 1st Battalion 11th Marines. Whiskey Battery has just today taken over the position and 155 mm howitzers of Whiskey Battery, 1st Battalion, 12th Marines. Until today (Monday) Whiskey 1/11 personnel had only fired it's TOE weapon: the 4.2 inch mortar. Between Monday and Wednesday morning Whiskey 1/11 will have to absorb what few personnel it gets from W 1/12; learn how to load, aim fire and maintain 155 mm Howitzers; ensure that they have sufficient rounds, fuzes and powder to support the upcoming assault; ensure that the fire direction personnel are competent directing fire of weapons wth three times the range and a round 3 times the weight of a 4.2" mortar; as well as the everyday concerns of shelter, food and sanitation. Oddly enough W1/11 is due on Tuesday for a entire day of training on how the troops should deal with transgender Marines.

You are that squad leader. Would you prefer that W 1/11 focus the two days that it has to prepare to fire in support of your platoon, or do you think that they should take their day of scheduled transgender training? Which alternative will have the most beneficial affect on the Marines that you are responsible for?

Tough choice, huh?

Michael K said...

"That list would narrow down which generals might need to answer questions."

Chuck is still unaware of the hanging party the left gave for Bob Stumpf, one of the best Navy pilots of the era.

Ten years later the Bush Administration corrected the injustice but his career was over.

The Bush administration has overturned a Clinton administration decision and approved the post-active-duty promotion of one of the most prominent Navy officers caught up in the Tailhook scandal.
Retired Cmdr. Robert Stumpf will be elevated to captain, six years after he quit the service in disgust when it blocked his promotion despite four inquiries that cleared him of wrongdoing at the notorious aviation convention.
"I conclude at this time that an injustice has resulted in not promoting petitioner to the grade of captain," wrote William Navas Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower and reserve affairs, in a July 23 memo.
He authorized the Board of Correction of Naval Records to amend Cmdr. Stumpf's personnel file to show he retired as a captain, with date of rank of July 1, 1995.


A friend of mine, and a Marine fighter pilot, told his sister, who I was dating at the time, "Don't ever go near Tailhook. No nice girl should be there." He also told her that, after the movie "Top Gun," to stay away from the Officers' Club on Friday night.

He was in there one evening having a beer before going home to his family and a girl walk up and grabbed his crotch.

hombre said...

As Conrad Black points out, no president has ever tried to drain the swamp.

Trump is a flawed man without a model. Only someone with an ego like his would dare attempt what he is attempting. He will make mistakes (although I don't see this latest as a mistake). So what! If he fails, no one will try again and the grifters will own the country.

Fabi said...

"Why would Trump insert himself into a contested primary on behalf of someone like Kid Rock, over his own co-chair in the state."

Once again -- not one single person suggested this. Just strawman fallacy to be burned.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

All these tweets and posts highlighting the concerns of transgender people who might maybe one day want to enlist strike me as funny. Is the military having a tough time getting enough recruits? I guess I thought the military was still in the process of scaling back, but maybe I'm not up to date. In any case, when the fuck has the military ever cared more about what potential recruits want than what the military needs to do its job? Unless they have trouble recruiting enough qualified people why the hell would the military care, at all, about the complaints and demands of potential recruits?
"I want this, I want that." I want the Braves to hire me as their third base coach; doesn't mean they should give a shit about me.
Our military has an important job, a vital job. Our military needs personnel to do that important job. Our military should decide first what people and what kind of people they need to best do their job (most effectively and efficiently) and then end the discussion there. Some potential recruit complains because the military decided they don't meet the requirement? Too damn bad. Shut your whining mouth.

Oh, sorry, can't say that, the nice centrist people will be upset at the sympathetic transgender (or whoever) having their feelings hurt. Pathetic.

Michael K said...

It's not the money, its the special treatment. No other malady that required that much attention would be allowed, in the military.

Yes, we were trying to figure out how the hell we would even process applicants.

Half a day of briefing didn't explain it and we were all relieved to see Mattis cancel it, which is what he did.

Trump is taking the heat for his JCS and Sec Def.

Feste said...

Way to Do Inquisitions

Darrell said - "What do you think about a President that tells the American people that a YouTube video is solely responsible for the Egyptian/Benghazi terror attacks and the death of an American Ambassador along with support staff?" Nothing, apparently. No Inquisition of personal data and people spoken, too. No fucking nothing

I’m guessing that your question calls for judgment. If so, fair enough. If not, then I misunderstand.

My judgment is suspended. I want more cards on the table.

Suspended because maybe Trump uses similar Bayesian guesses as those that I think drive such international weather reports, namely, that nations have different preferences for revising the level of trust between them, and formal coherency and express higher order beliefs (contra covert/hidden higher order beliefs) are low on the list of motivators.

Cheap talk (out-loud diplomacy), even in cases where one side does all the talking, masks deeper uncertainties and incomplete information deep down in war rooms, where analysts and generals do the calculus of security.

Trump’s behavior seems (seems) to reflect an assumption that his own public Tweet/message space is unlimited (per biology = lifetime supply, not mathematically infinite) and he can change international equilibriums with just one side, his side, doing all the talking.

I’m not saying he doesn’t listen in private. I think he does.

With one side doing all the cheap talking/diplomacy out loud, plus an assumption of unlimited Tweet/message space, presto - you get your own observation - “Nothing, apparently.”

Regarding, however, your added - “No Inquisition of personal data and people spoken, too (sic) - not so fast.

All that Inquisition stuff is done out of sight.

AReasonableMan said...

Howard said...
The real House of Cards is better than the Neflix version.


I had largely tuned out the chaos at the White House but Trump, like any great impresario, knows how to keep the interest of the crowds. Anthony Scaramucci definitely takes Operation KAOS to another level.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

Francisco D said...

The MSM and our vulgar little LLR want people to get the impression that the White House is in chaos.

It's not a bad strategy. Trump is a poker player who tries to throw people off by betting unpredictably. The resistance is trying to give the impression that he is out of control because they cannot predict his moves.

Pinandpuller said...

The EPA says The Swamp is a navigable waterway.

What do?

Pinandpuller said...

HoodlumDoodlum

It's almost like there's a faction in this country who doesn't favor high standards for immigrants, the armed forces, higher learning...

Pinandpuller said...

Give us your tattooed, your transsexuals, your homosexual masses, yearning to break ranks.

Clyde said...

Maybe they aren't booting them today, but the policy change is coming. I wouldn't expect any new transsexuals to try to enlist, just as the number of illegal immigrants coming in has dropped significantly since January 20th. The handwriting is on the wall. The sanctuary is disappearing. Time to try a different gig.

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...

"You miserable fucking lunatic. I said that I support a military ban on transgenders. Why would I "attack" a military officer who also supported it?"

Because of your deranged hatred of Trump.

We know a real LLR would hide behind generals so they could spend all their time in front of democrat/LLRs being abused in congress.

I think you realized halfway through the thread you were attacking Trump because Trump showed courage and it makes your knee jerk bashing of him look terrible. Trump took the heat for the people working for him. Like a leader does.

It's ok Chuck. You can say it: Gooooood...jooooobbbb... President Trump.

tim maguire said...

Seeing as how transgender is one of those things where you are if you say you are and there is no other way to tell, transgender individuals who really want to serve have a loophole they can easily exploit.

They'll be wearing a uniform anyway so it's not like, absent Trump, they could have been fabulous.

Darrell said...

Poor, poor Chuck. He spent election night hoping Hillary would win so he could trot out the "I told you so's." Probably pre-wrote a stream of next day comments pushing his laughable theory that any Republican but Trump could have beat Hillary. Joyless Chuck might have momentarily wished for Trump to win, then have a satellite fall on his head killing him. He laughed and laughed. Then back to hoping Hillary would make him the Althouse king of Nov. 9th. Now he demands body-cavity searches of the Trump family to prove Trump's Tweet contained misleading information. What a sad life this c-sucker leads.

iowan2 said...

Yes Tim. Any transgender can serve. The military is refusing to enable their CHOICE of how they present themselves. You and I see it, everyone else is being intentional obtuse.

As to those already enlisted, medical and psychological treatments cease. They are all stilled able bodied and fit to serve.

James K said...

Chaos is what Obama created by proclaiming these reckless policies at the end of his term, to be dumped into the lap of his successor.

John Nowak said...

>What a sad life this c-sucker leads.

And probably imagines people take him seriously.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...

Where ya been?

SukieTawdry said...

hombre said...Even draining a swamp can be done in a methodical way. All this drama is giving me a headache. It's not necessary."

I recommend you look at who is supporting him and who is opposing him, check the odds, then rethink what "methodical" has to look like.


I believe the administration is draining, or at least attempting to drain, the VA swamp methodically. It's also being quite methodical over at the EPA. For two examples.

Why take what is sure to be a hot button issue anyway and deliberately raise the temperature to white hot? A clear and concise explanation of why the military considers transgendered soldiering to be detrimental to its mission preferably by the SecDef is in order here. Not random Tweeting from the president about the cost of transitioning. Look, he's got a majority of Americans already on his side on this issue. Why play into the hands of the loony opposition.

SukieTawdry said...

Tim Maguire said...They'll be wearing a uniform anyway so it's not like, absent Trump, they could have been fabulous.

Hey, uniforms can be fabulous. Navy dress whites? Utterly fabulous.

Michael K said...

They'll be wearing a uniform anyway so it's not like, absent Trump, they could have been fabulous.

I'm sure if any transgenders are serving, they are cross dressing off duty.

I think it is charming how the left is using traitor Chelsea Manning to lecture us on policy,

The military is really focusing on mental health these days because of suicides and Bowe Bergdahl.

hombre said...

Sukie Tawdry wrote: "Look, he's got a majority of Americans already on his side on this issue. Why play into the hands of the loony opposition."

I gave my best answer to this at 3:23. It may be incorrect, but I think that it makes sense. It seems likely that Trump is jerking chains for a purpose. Certainly, the loony opposition reacts predictably.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The commenters are so bigoted that yesterday they twisted themselves into pretzels rationalizing it.

Here's the rationale: Trump can't STAND that a lawyer would have the ethics to recuse himself from a matter in which he has a conflicting interest, as Jefferson Beauregard was revealed to have had, he doesn't understand that the U.S. AG IS NOT the same as his own personal attorney, and therefore he was steaming mad and wanted to fire the guy.

However, that would really put his supposed "loyalty" and Confederate creds to the test. Ergo, he had to figure out another way to give his deplorable and bigoted base some red meat. Beating up on the trannies would do. Nevermind that they don't cost the military one tenth the cost that Viagra does for their impotent vets and PTSD E.D. crowd. And never also mind the fact that they could have restricted surgery coverage without restricting participation.

But it did the trick. It was his crude base coverage for the intended move of getting rid of his crude base A.G. And for getting a slick Manhattan hedge fund yutz as the new Information Czar.

It was all about politics. Nothing to do with principle. It really never is.

hombre said...

Toothless wrote: "Here's the rationale: Trump can't STAND that a lawyer would have the ethics to recuse himself from a matter in which he has a conflicting interest, as Jefferson Beauregard was revealed to have had, he doesn't understand that the U.S. AG IS NOT the same as his own personal attorney, and therefore he was steaming mad and wanted to fire the guy."

Non sequitur notwithstanding, there was no justification for Sessions recusing himself. Here's an article by Andrew McCarthy, no fan of Trump's, explaining why. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449849/sessions-trump-following-federal-regulations-could-have-avoided-mess

Take a little time. Read it. Come back when the recusal is the topic and you have some idea what you are talking about.

tim maguire said...

What's this chaos of which you speak? I went back and looked at the tweets. Trump said transgenders will not be allowed to serve, the military said they will follow Trump's directive as soon as there is a plan to put it in effect.

That's how it's supposed to work. Were people expecting a night of broken glass? Oh right, yeah, they were.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Maybe I'll read it but Andy McCarthy's a hack and that rag publishing his hackery is not much better. Jefferson Beauregard was caught lying (or not telling the truth) under oath in a nomination hearing regarding his relations with a foreign power now known to have conducted the obvious crime of attacking our election databases (and more) that his department has to investigate. He had no choice, and did the right thing. Lawyers and senators far more esteemed than McCarthy would agree and have no problem with saying so, as does the ACLU. He's the top law enforcer under Trump and has to set an example of integrity to maintain credibility. Anything short of recusal could have led to his being disbarred. McCarthy's just out there to crank out essays to rev up the right-wing base and to do lawyerly tricks of arguing around the unlikely and insignificant margins in the service of that objective. I'm sure it's all energizing semi-academic stuff and very invigorating to the base, but not as useful in real life.

But thanks anyway. This administration has played fast and loose with too many rules and norms to have risked a disbarment-inviting stunt like defiance of the sort that you and McCarthy and Trump had wished upon a man with at least the integrity to have declined. If only more folks in that administration had a tenth that much integrity they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

It's just arguing around the edges. McCarthy lays out an infinite array of parameters around which the scope of the recusal could have been narrowed, and later widened if found necessary as deemed by the investigation's outcomes and indictments. If that's the kind of meticulous drama Sessions would have seen fit to embroil himself in, so be it - but it seems that it would have only complicated things further. This administration is already full of enough drama and mischief. For Sessions to have taken the administrative and professional advice he got as seriously as he did shows that he's really the only one professional enough and with enough integrity to make the administration even semi-credible. And that's not saying much. Maybe you prefer a Trump administration with less credibility than more but that's your choice. And McCarthy has a long history of making bad (if interesting and momentarily defensible) calls.

A recusal as definitive as the one he took is one of the few things this administration has gotten right. But I get that their recklessness is what people love about (the administration), so I understand why you disagree.

hombre said...

Toothless: "He's the top law enforcer under Trump and has to set an example of integrity to maintain credibility. Anything short of recusal could have led to his being disbarred." Of course, with Obama's AGs, two tough acts to follow: Guns to Mexican druggies. Contempt of Congress. Tarmac meeting w/Slick Willy to discuss grandkids and obstructing the Hillary "not an investigation." Integrity personified.

McCarthy is no hack. He was a real prosecutor, who prosecuted real cases. But I can certainly understand why you would choose not to read his analysis based on actual federal regulations when you have the ACLU to rely on. Like evidence, the law is of no interest to lefties.

Beltway Jeff Sessions is a pussy who unnecessarily threw Trump under the bus to cover his own ass. Session's failure to disclose has nothing to do with Mueller's limited brief.

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said.i>
Where ya been?


Not enjoying the blog much at the moment. I am not buying Althouse's defenses of Mr Trump. Her endless diversionary tactics make for uninteresting reading. Surely she has something of interest to say about Trump himself. Also, the general mood here is a lot less friendly than it was. It was a much happier place when most people were focused on bashing Obama.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Beltway Jeff Sessions is a pussy who unnecessarily threw Trump under the bus to cover his own ass. Session's failure to disclose has nothing to do with Mueller's limited brief.

Doesn't matter. Jefferson Beauregard was the only one with a regular D.C. job weird enough to trust Trump, pledge support/loyalty and all that jazz, and then get thrown under the bus simply because he takes his department's policies seriously. CYA shouldn't be a problem if you have a boss that cares about your ass in the first place. I'd say it's shameful in revealing Trump's contempt for propriety and his own sense of loyalty but again, as I said, that's what you guys love about him. It's all about the recklessness.

And your timing's off. Mueller wasn't even in place when J. Beauregard's failure took place.

Finally, what was McCarthy's record when he was actually prosecuting - rather than just writing for a living, as he seems to have been occupying himself with for the last 15 years? He has a habit for basically being a legal academic in the service of right-wing unitary executive hatchet jobs, only to find that the political blowback always gets the people who take his advice.

The law is of interest to us. So is integrity. But I understand if you feel that integrity is too big an obstacle to your overwhelming political partisan goals to care about. Same with your hatred of evidence. As a spokesperson for the anti-science party it's pretty amusing hearing you hate on the left under the banner of evidence.

There's way too many chances Sessions would have taken had he heeded McCarthy's advice (was he in those 80's John Hughes films, BTW?)

I'm not a fan of HRC (never was) nor of what took place between her husband and Loretta Lynch. But unlike you I don't put party above country.

As for guns to druggies, I didn't realize the 2nd amendment had the kind of social judgement you project into it. Aren't you shilling for the party that the NRA has bought and sold to the tune of allowing guns for suspected terrorists on the no-fly list? What a brilliant policy that is. No wonder your folks where in office when 9/11 struck - after they ignored the memo a month in advance warning them that it would happen.

hombre said...

Toothless: "And McCarthy has a long history of making bad (if interesting and momentarily defensible) calls."

This is just bullshit! You have no basis for this assertion, just as you have no basis for most of your assertions.

hombre said...

Toothless: "And your timing's off. Mueller wasn't even in place when J. Beauregard's failure took place."

If you had read the article, you might understand the issue.

And: "As for guns to druggies, I didn't realize the Second Amendment had the kind of social judgement you project into it."

I see now. You really are just winging it with trollshit, aren't you? Have at it. LOL.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

So McCarthy's most famous stances, on:

Waterboarding,
Obama as a radical Muslim,
Prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts,
and abolishing Medicare!

have all been vindicated? Right.

He specializes in making (occasionally) legal cases for political bullshit that gets decisively defeated at the polls - over and over again. Bravo. He's basically the go-to lawyer for lost causes. Kind of sad, given what he was able to do in his glory days prosecuting Sheikh Rahman in the 90s, before retiring from DOJ in 2003.

He did a better job playing Molly Ringwald's love interest in Pretty in Pink!

I fully support the value you find in him as a theoretician, though. But the Trump presidency will not rise or fall on the basis of finagling and wrangling with minute legal maneuvering around every dunderheaded extra-legal blunder they trip over. Occasionally you just have to admit that your client is a dumbass with a death wish and write him off, no matter how much money he has to pay you for bailing out of his infinite shenanigans and run-ins with the law. Oh, it's fun and a challenge and it pays well, I'm sure. Until you admit that the bigger thrill for him consists in finding a way to just caught. Evading accountability ends up just torturing him, and what he longs for most is that cathartic, long-sought after confrontation with the law that finally calls him out and cleanses his villainous impulse. Witness O.J. Simpson.

Some criminals just can't stand to constantly get away with their misdeeds. They get bored of "winning," as Trump reminded us - and cry out for justice for their victims. Daring the authorities just isn't fun any more unless they're convinced they can actually catch up with them every now and then.

Alex said...

AReasonableMan said...
Althouse gently leads her readers towards the truth. This is going to be a long painful process.
7/27/17, 1:59 PM


We all knew with clear minds back in 2016 that Trump was a scoundrel, but slightly less evil than HITlery ClinTONG, it was that simple dude...

Alex said...

AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said.i>
Where ya been?

Not enjoying the blog much at the moment. I am not buying Althouse's defenses of Mr Trump. Her endless diversionary tactics make for uninteresting reading. Surely she has something of interest to say about Trump himself. Also, the general mood here is a lot less friendly than it was. It was a much happier place when most people were focused on bashing Obama.

7/27/17, 8:52 PM


Sad puppy ARM. You would rather have Hillary "the Traitor" in power? Sure she would be beloved by the Eurocrats and not be in 'chaos', but she'd be selling us down the river to the Chinese by now.

Achilles said...

Here's the rationale: Trump can't STAND that a lawyer would have the ethics to recuse himself from a matter in which he has a conflicting interest,

Why hasn't Mueller recused himself? He has the object example of a conflict of interest.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The law is of interest to us.

Which one did Trump break? Did Trump shoot Seth Rich?

So is integrity.

So Obama sending classified emails to Hillary's private server was no big deal. But something you can't describe in words that Trump did is a problem.

You are lying to yourself.

But I understand if you feel that integrity is too big an obstacle to your overwhelming political partisan goals to care about. Same with your hatred of evidence.

This is a laughable straw man. You have no evidence. There is no crime. Your Russia collusion investigation is a joke. You will write 200 words in response not dealing with any of this.

As a spokesperson for the anti-science party it's pretty amusing hearing you hate on the left under the banner of evidence.

It is your and the Warmists that are killing the scientific method. Do you wish to attempt to engage on that front again and explain why we have to ignore 99% of the evidence because humans didn't exist? Creationists do a better jobs explaining that than you did.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
The commenters are so bigoted that yesterday they twisted themselves into pretzels rationalizing it.

You have no idea what the military does or what their missions are. You have no idea what the pressure we were under was like or what situations we were in required. You do not understand the consequences of failure.

All of this is rearguard crap and will soon be moot. But for the short term the military still depends on soldiers and unit cohesion.

Soldiers are imperfect vessels at best. But for now they must succeed at their mission and if they fail we will all feel the thunderbolt.

It would be nice if you people could talk to us and understand what it is like. But you would rather call us bigots and not engage. We are all used to your derision and hatred.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Why hasn't Mueller recused himself? He has the object example of a conflict of interest.

So how many law school courses did you fail to come up with that one?

It is your and the Warmists that are killing the scientific method. Do you wish to attempt to engage on that front again and explain why we have to ignore 99% of the evidence because humans didn't exist? Creationists do a better jobs explaining that than you did.

And how many science courses did you fail to come up with that one?

It's pointless discussing something with someone who's too stupid to understand that climate changes affect human infrastructure differently than how they affect dinosaurs - and instead just flubs the point entirely and proclaims that the dinosaur era-evidence was just ignored!

Do you take stupid pills? Serious question.

You have no idea what the military does or what their missions are.

Sounds like Ash Carter and the JSOC would disagree with you, although I'm guessing that these missions don't involve much sexual fixation - that is, unless rape's made a comeback as a weapon of war or a disciplinary tool within the ranks. Nevertheless, your resentment for civilian command of the military notwithstanding, I'll bet back in the day you would have argued against desegregating the ranks, on the same shallow basis of decrying it as a form of "social experimentation" that has no place in the military. But it happened anyway and I have a solid hunch that this other thing will continue going forward also. You lost the battle to keep women out, and to keep gays out. I'm pretty sure that the battle to keep trannies out has just as little merit as those lost battles did.

Most important lesson of war: Knowing when and when not to fight. Poor strategist might complain about "pressure!"

Jon Ericson said...

Nice you could make it.
Livens up the joint.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
"Rusty said.i>
Where ya been?

Not enjoying the blog much at the moment. I am not buying Althouse's defenses of Mr Trump. Her endless diversionary tactics make for uninteresting reading. Surely she has something of interest to say about Trump himself. Also, the general mood here is a lot less friendly than it was. It was a much happier place when most people were focused on bashing Obama. "

For a minute there I thought maybe you were sick.
Don't want that.
You have a whole new president to eviscerate.
Or defend.
Whatever.
The conversation, if you want to call it that, doesn't end just because you don't participate.

AReasonableMan said...

Rusty said...
For a minute there I thought maybe you were sick.


No, just a bit defeated by the current political situation, but thanks for the concern.

Richard said...

Since I was in (Army), 69-71, at least, the marginalized group which happens to be flavor of the month can demand and get special treatment and escape certain disciplinary issues by claiming or threatening to claim discrimination.
Some time after Nidal Hasan shot up Ft. Hood, the Army announced it was going to investigate thirty-nine officers who were or may have been in a position to stop his greased slide to the shooting gallery.
His appalling professional performance was widely known, as was his demosntrated Islamic nutcasery.
For any of the thirty nine officers who get crossways for not stopping him, the excuse that failing to give a Muslim officer anything short of superlative efficiency reports is evidence of Islamophobia and will ruin your career...is not going to be an excuse, since it's not written down anywhere. It just...is. And everybody knows it except those who will be judging the guys under investigation. They'll have temporary amnesia on the subject.
And trans folks won't be any different.

hombre said...

Toothless: "So McCarthy's most famous stances, on:

Waterboarding,
Obama as a radical Muslim,
Prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts,
and abolishing Medicare!

have all been vindicated? Right."

Toothless goes to Wikipedia for backup and still gets it wrong.

Sabinal said...

Most likely, Trump did the tweet impulsively (how else?) out of anger that transgender benefits was the only thing stopping the budget.

People who are not familiar with the military sees trans as a non problem. But within the military, the soldiers are finding they are having to walk on eggshells dealing with trans PLUS women are losing their privacy; men can go in the dressing rooms with them as long as they claim to be female. No operation needed. Not to mention they get carte blanche with operations and healthcare while everyone else gets in line and hopes for their turn and that Tricare will cover it.

And protesting/whining is easy. For people who hated Trump it was not a big deal - they get to show how "caring" they are without lifting a finger.