ChrisWeigant.com

John McCain's Blatant Hypocrisy

[ Posted Tuesday, July 25th, 2017 – 16:30 UTC ]

Senator John McCain traveled from his home in Arizona to Washington in order to cast the 50th vote to open debate in the Senate on the Republican healthcare bill. He was greeted by a round of applause and warm feelings by all, since he has just been diagnosed with brain cancer. I do not begrudge McCain his opportunity to vote, and I would further state that I (just like anyone with a shred of human decency and compassion) fully hope he wins his battle against cancer and send him fond wishes in his medical crisis. But that doesn't mean I can't also point out his naked hypocrisy today.

Indeed, others have already done so, but they've taken a slightly different route, by noting that McCain's health insurance is paid for by tax dollars and that he just voted to possibly deny access to millions of other Americans to the same life-saving medical care he is now getting. That is hypocritical, but even if McCain weren't in Congress he would still have earned the right to government paid-for health care, by dint of his military service. So I leave it to others to call out McCain on this front.

Instead, what struck me was a long passage from the speech he gave in the Senate right after Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to open debate. Because McCain displays -- with jaw-dropping specificity -- exactly the same hypocrisy and/or naked cynicism he is purporting to decry, all in the space of a few paragraphs. I've included the entire extended passage from the full transcript, for context. McCain is speaking about the need for the Senate to start acting less "tribal," and return to the way it is supposed to do the nation's business.

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don't want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.

Let's trust each other. Let's return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.

We're getting nothing done. All we've really done this year is confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Our healthcare insurance system is a mess. We all know it, those who support Obamacare and those who oppose it. Something has to be done. We Republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found it yet, and I'm not sure we will. All we've managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it.

I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It's a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my state's governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it.

We've tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it's better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end. And it probably shouldn't.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn't have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn't do the same with ours.

Why don't we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act? If this process ends in failure, which seem likely, then let's return to regular order.

Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides. Then bring it to the floor for amendment and debate, and see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

What have we to lose by trying to work together to find those solutions? We're not getting much done apart. I don't think any of us feels very proud of our incapacity. Merely preventing your political opponents from doing what they want isn't the most inspiring work. There's greater satisfaction in respecting our differences, but not letting them prevent agreements that don't require abandonment of core principles, agreements made in good faith that help improve lives and protect the American people.

The Senate is capable of that. We know that. We've seen it before. I've seen it happen many times. And the times when I was involved even in a modest way with working out a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat are the proudest moments of my career, and by far the most satisfying.

Now, McCain's words seem to soar at times, but the very lofty principle he is begging his fellow senators to rediscover is precisely what he is voting against. If he listened to and took his own advice, he would have either stayed in Arizona or voted against the motion to proceed. No amount of soaring phrases can deny this basic truth -- McCain is saying he is cynically voting for a bill that he hopes will fail and whose failure he hopes will begin a bipartisan process using regular order; but if that's what he truly wanted, he could have actually guaranteed it happened by voting against the motion to proceed.

Try as he might, McCain cannot square this hypocritical circle. From the top, after smacking loudmouths on television and radio (McCain, of course, never appears on any of these shows, right?) he proceeds to call for the Senate to return to regular order, saying: "We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires." But voting for the motion to proceed does exactly that. It is a parliamentary maneuver (a last-ditch option, really, for Mitch McConnell) which will score a "win" without help from the other side, which will mandate legislation from the top down. There's just no two ways about it.

McCain doubles down on this doublethink, openly admitting that he's voting to continue the parliamentary mischief from his own party, and openly admitting that Republicans aren't in the slightest bit interested in what Democrats think:

We Republicans have looked for a way to end [Obamacare] and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. We haven't found it yet, and I'm not sure we will. All we've managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It's a shell of a bill right now. We all know that.

Note that "it's a shell of a bill." Nobody knows what Mitch McConnell will do next, to fill that shell. There will be no regular order at all. McConnell's just going to wing it with a sixth of the American economy, and McCain doesn't even sound all that concerned if some disastrously bad bill actually passes with only Republican support or not. In case this isn't clear enough, McCain then lays it out in plain language:

We've tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it's better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I don't think that is going to work in the end. And it probably shouldn't. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats shouldn't have forced through Congress without any opposition support a social and economic change as massive as Obamacare. And we shouldn't do the same with ours.

Got all of that? Democrats forced Obamacare through Congress with no Republican votes. Republicans shouldn't do the same. Unless they do. Which would be bad, and shouldn't happen. So I'm going to become the key vote that insures the possibility of it happening, instead of shutting this whole process down right now with a "nay" vote. The stench of your hypocrisy is overpowering, Senator McCain. You had the power to force the Senate to do exactly what you say you want them to do, and you did not use it. It's all on you, in other words, and not on anyone else.

McCain might be excused this hypocritical rhetoric, if there had been 52 Republican votes to proceed. If his vote hadn't mattered one way or the other, then McCain might have had a moral leg to stand on to make complaints about his own party's actions. But that simply was not the case. McCain was the key vote, which is why he traveled from his sick bed to cast it. The decision about which way the Senate should go was entirely his to make.

McCain then rubs our noses in his massive, stinking hypocrisy, by laying out what he really, really would like to see happen instead of the process he just voted for:

Why don't we try the old way of legislating in the Senate, the way our rules and customs encourage us to act? If this process ends in failure, which seem likely, then let's return to regular order. Let the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray hold hearings, try to report a bill out of committee with contributions from both sides. Then bring it to the floor for amendment and debate, and see if we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, but that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

Lofty words, to be sure. But McCain is again ignoring the reality of the situation. If the motion to proceed had failed today -- if McCain had voted no on it -- then this is exactly what would begin to happen. McCain just voted for "this process," which he thinks is likely to end in failure. But he could have halted that process by just voting no. He could have begun the committee hearings and the bipartisan work to craft a real piece of legislation via regular order. He did not do so. Which is why his speech was so inexplicable.

The legislation currently under consideration was jammed onto Republicans (to say nothing of Democrats) in both houses of Congress by secretive meetings by leadership and drafting the language in back rooms. The bill's drafts were kept as secret as possible -- even from Republican members -- for as long as possible, because it was so politically awful. Not a single committee meeting -- on either side of the Capitol -- was ever held. Not a single person testified -- no experts, no doctors, no patients, no hospital administrators, no insurance company or drug company executives, not a single person's voice was ever heard. That would have all changed if the Senate bill had died today. In the Senate, Republican committee chairs have said they actually want to go through the regular order process, and that they resent the way McConnell is shoving his own bill down everyone's throats. Moderate Republicans have openly expressed a desire to work with Democrats to actually fix real-world problems rather than just bend over backwards to strip health insurance from as many millions of Americans is necessary to provide a gigantic tax break for billionaires. Even those Republicans who don't want to see such a compromise have admitted that that's likely what would happen next if "repeal and replace" fails in the Senate. Even Mitch McConnell himself has publicly admitted this.

So it's not like John McCain was unaware of what voting no would have achieved. He knows full well that the only way the Senate is going to return to regular order, the only way a bill can be written in committee, the only way Democrats are ever going to join in a bipartisan effort is if the current bill fails -- something McCain seems to actually wish for multiple times in his speech.

McCain could have been the brave maverick, bucking his own party to force them back into regular order. He could have been the voice of reason and actually lived up to the words in his own speech. Because there were only 49 other Republican "yes" votes, if McCain had voted against the motion to proceed -- or if he had simply stayed in Arizona and missed the vote -- then the Senate would have had no choice but to follow the path McCain says he wants to return to.

Instead, he voted to continue wasting the Senate's time on a bill he hopes to see fail. That's fine -- there were other Republicans who did the same thing today, after all. But to get up and castigate the Senate for attempting to pass a very partisan bill by a process which isn't even in the same time zone as "regular order" when you personally could have stopped this from happening is the absolute depth of hypocrisy.

Today, John McCain talked the talk. But he absolutely failed to walk the walk. So you'll forgive me if I don't have any crocodile tears to shed over the lack of regular order in the Senate, Senator McCain. If you want to know who is solely responsible for the lack of regular order on this bill, from this point on all you'll have to do to find out is to look into a mirror.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

86 Comments on “John McCain's Blatant Hypocrisy”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Every time a republican claims the ACA was forced down their throat without input they are lying.

    The ACA took several months, there were numerous public hearings, multiple committees were involved, over 130 amendments were considered, there were 79 roll-call votes and 25 days of Senate debate.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/obamacare-repeal-of-health-law-republicans.html?mtrref=en.wikipedia.org

    McCain lied about that along with all the rest.

    McCain's "maverick" label has long-since passed its sell-by date. He just likes going on TV and having people fawn on him because he "sounds" statesmanlike, even though he always slinks back and votes the party line.

    He has one more vote with which to salvage his reputation. If he votes "yea" for whatever final mess they put up -- assuming they shove it through by Friday as they hope to do -- he will be deservedly consigned to "ex-hero" status for the rest of his days. Its his legacy and his choice.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Yes, thank you... perfectly stated and nailed it!

    I can't remember ever hearing such an "all purpose" speech in my entire life. McCain could have literally given almost the exact same speech to justify a "no" vote.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    1

    Every time a republican claims the ACA was forced down their throat without input they are lying.

    Lying, propaganda, and "alternative facts" seem to have become the "rule" and not the "exception" for the GOP of late. Obviously it's not unusual for politicians to lie, but the sheer amount of fabrication, bald-faced and pathological lying coming out of the Trump administration has seen no equal... so much so that there's even lying about lying.

    Donald Trump: I will never lie to you.

    Everyone Else: You just did.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I know that I have said it before, but I used to have a LOT of respect for McCain. I was thrilled when he won the Republican primary in 2008 as a moderate in a sea of conservatives. It took only one week for McCain to flip on virtually every position that he claimed he held during the primary -- positions that were similar in lots of ways to those held by Obama. McCain transformed from being a moderate Republican into an anti-Democrat -- he didn't hold any opinions of his own, he simply was against anything Obama was for.

    He had a lot to do with why I left the GOP, and his performance today only serves to reinforce why leaving was the right thing to do!

  5. [5] 
    dsws wrote:

    They will pass something. Imagine if you were in a room with 52 other people and a trillion dollars: if you can get 50 of you to agree, you get to split the trillion; if not, you walk out empty-handed. You would come to some sort of an agreement.

    It's not literally cash in hand, but close enough: there's a vast amount of money at stake in any reworking of our medical system.

  6. [6] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    I guess my outlook on McCain is less harsh than everyone else here. He did say he wouldn't vote for the bill "as it is today". Personally, I don't think McCain will vote for anything even close to how it is now. I could be wrong about this of course. But I don't see it happening. Again, maybe I am just biased toward giving McCain the benefit of the doubt. If we assume the worst of him, that he is being a hypocrite and knows it, what is his end game? It doesn't make sense that he is worried about getting primaried from the right(like other Republicans are). He just got re-elected last year, and from what I've heard, the chances of him surviving six years aren't very high(though I sincerely hope he does. For one thing I am Arizonan and know that we could, and probably would end up with someone far worse than McCain. We are the state that kept former Sherrif Joe Arpaio in power for decades) . And even if he were still around and well enough, would he even want to run then? He clearly recognizes that if anything like the bill's current form passes and becomes law, there will likely be a huge backlash against the GOP. There was a backlash against the Democrats after the ACA passed, so even if you completely disbelieve the CBO results, it is realistic to expect the same thing could well happen to the GOP. And I don't think McCain disbelieves the CBO. So assuming McCain doesn't really care about bipartisanship, what does he care about? What is his motive here?

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Indeed, others have already done so, but they've taken a slightly different route, by noting that McCain's health insurance is paid for by tax dollars and that he just voted to possibly deny access to millions of other Americans to the same life-saving medical care he is now getting. That is hypocritical, but even if McCain weren't in Congress he would still have earned the right to government paid-for health care, by dint of his military service. So I leave it to others to call out McCain on this front.

    But they are wrong to condemn McCain for his health insurance because he has EARNED it, as you point out..

    Now, McCain's words seem to soar at times, but the very lofty principle he is begging his fellow senators to rediscover is precisely what he is voting against. If he listened to and took his own advice, he would have either stayed in Arizona or voted against the motion to proceed.

    In other words, if McCain would toe the Democrat Party line.. :^/

    the only way Democrats are ever going to join in a bipartisan effort is if the current bill fails --

    Oh come on... The Demcorats have made it ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR that they aren't going to join *ANY* bi-partisan efforts as long as President Trump is in office..

    "We promise to work with you if you just give us everything we want"

    Puuuullleeeeesssssseeeeeeee

    I have seen to many clips of Lucy with a football to believe THAT soaring pile of felgercarb...

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    Good ta see ya!!! :D

    I guess my outlook on McCain is less harsh than everyone else here.

    There's a reason for that....

    Again, maybe I am just biased toward giving McCain the benefit of the doubt.

    And that's a good thing.. Don't let anyone here tell you different..

    There was a backlash against the Democrats after the ACA passed, so even if you completely disbelieve the CBO results, it is realistic to expect the same thing could well happen to the GOP.

    Trust me, I have done the research.. You CAN "completely disbelieve" the CBO results..

    The CBO looks on with envy the IPCC predictions..

    I don't really much care about healthcare politics so I am just hazarding a guess...

    McCain is simply giving the GOP what they want in the here and now, knowing it won't do much good later...

    It's like when those moronic GOP'ers voted for the TrainWreckCare repeal under Obama. They could vote for ANYTHING without the consequences of it actually passing...

    McCain is probably doing the same thing.. Going along to get along, knowing it won't matter because the bill will likely fail in the long run..

    That's my guess..

    Personally I would LOVE to see GOPcare go the distance and with President Trump in the mix, it very well might.. :D

    Good ta see yer still around, B... :D

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    McCain transformed from being a moderate Republican into an anti-Democrat -- he didn't hold any opinions of his own, he simply was against anything Obama was for.

    How is that any different than ya'all and the rest of the Dumbocrats (notable exceptions noted) being against everything that President Trump is for??

    {{chhiiiirrrrrppppppp}} {{ccchhiiiirrrrppppppppp}}

    Yea... That's what I thought...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    dsws,

    They will pass something.

    I am fairly certain that you are correct..

    Something will get passed..

    Something that Trump and the GOP can point to as a win..

    And it will be because ANYTHING that passes will be better than TrainWreckCare....

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Obviously it's not unusual for politicians to lie, but the sheer amount of fabrication, bald-faced and pathological lying coming out of the Trump administration has seen no equal... so much so that there's even lying about lying.

    "If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan."

    "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

    "I welcome debate on my domestic surveillance programs."

    "I did not have improper sexual relations with that woman."

    "Upon arriving in Bosnia, I remember landing under sniper fire."

    "I was named after Sir Edmund Hilary"

    I could list hundreds, if not thousands, more lies that come from the Dumbocrat Party...

    The simple FACT is lying is a way of life for politicians. NEITHER Party has a lock on lying and BOTH Partys do it equally..

    But ya'all ONLY care about "lying" when it comes from the Right.. Ya'all are PERFECTLY fine with lying when it comes from the Left...

    This is well-documented...

    So, please.. Spare us the righteous indignation about lying... It's hollow and meaningless...

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    But to address your main point..

    Of course McCain is being hypocritical...

    It's what politicians do... Party Loyalty = Hypocrisy...

    But he is being no more hypocritical than anyone else in Congress and a LOT LESS hypocritical than many MANY Weigantians...

    Blaming a politician for being a hypocrite is like blaming the sun for rising in the east and setting in the west...

    It is what it is...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Indeed, others have already done so, but they've taken a slightly different route, by noting that McCain's health insurance is paid for by tax dollars and that he just voted to possibly deny access to millions of other Americans to the same life-saving medical care he is now getting. That is hypocritical,

    Just as it was hypocritical when Democrats passed TrainWreckCare but still had their own private BETTER health insurance paid for by tax-dollars..

    But no one here (sans CW) commented on that hypocrisy then...

    "Gee!!! I wonder why that is!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    Personal item, re: AFSC. Number 12 with two Letters. Navigator/ewo-type jobs. In my day, there was precious little electronics needing warlike officiation, and plenty of naviguessing.

    An EWO!!!!

    I salute you, sir... I mean I really would salute you if we ever met.. :D

    You were an officer so the AFSC designations are different..

    81172-A is a Law Enforcement Supervisor with a K-9 designator..

    When/where were you in??

    I was 80-94.. Primarily Kadena AB, Okinawa.. It's where I met my lovely wife.. She was a dependent-daughter and I busted her and her friends at a barracks party.. :D

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Typo alert..

    80-84

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:
  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2017/07/21/john_deering_john_deering_for_jul_21_2017_5_.jpg

    The Republican Party in a nutshell...

    I am sure I'll get a couple "yep"s for this, eh? :D heh

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:
  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Dow rises 100 points, hits record high as Boeing and other companies post strong earnings
    Dow-component Boeing posted earnings per share of $2.55, topping Wall Street estimates.
    Coca-Cola and Ford also posted better-than-expected quarterly results.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/26/us-stocks-boeing-earnings-fed.html

    M.A.G.A.

    I have to concede.... President Trump was wrong..

    I am not even CLOSE to getting tired of winning... :D

    All the hateful fear mongering of what a Trump administration would bring was just that..

    Hysterical hateful fear-mongering....

    Who could have possibly predicted that??

    Oh... wait... :D

  20. [20] 
    Paula wrote:

    So McCain voted "yes" on the monstrous bill. Well, well, well -- isn't he inspiring? And he flew all the way in and got all that fawning coverage only to vote "yes" on a bill that went down. A horrible bill. Will he vote "yes" on repeal-only too? Maybe after giving another speech at which, perhaps finally, credulous people will watch with a more jaundiced eye?

    Chuck Todd had tweeted that he thought McCain had done the speech to set up his "no" vote.

    Kudos to the No-Repubs: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bob Corker (R-TN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Dean Heller (R-NV).

    The zombie bill goes on and on so it ain't over yet. But McCain's reputation should take a hit. And all because he showboated -- he's Trump-like that way.

    Kick (2): Yep. The Trump gang literally lie almost continuously. Literally.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick (2): Yep. The Trump gang literally lie almost continuously. Literally.

    As did the Odumbo/NOT-45 gang..

    But SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH We don't talk about that here...

    Because ya'all (NEN) really don't care about lying....

    Ya'all just hate when it's the GOP that's doing it... :D

  22. [22] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    "Good ta see ya!!! :D"

    Right back atcha :)
    I read Chris's column most nights, I just don't comment that much. Some nights I just don't feel like I have much to add. And sometimes I have to not think about politics or I get sad :/

    Maybe not a popular position here, but McCain is one of the GOP senators I have a bit of a soft spot for(Lindsay Graham is another). Oh sure he's done things that have disappointed me sometimes, and certainly I disagree with him on many issues. I didn't vote for him last year. But I do respect him. The possible motives don't make sense to me for hypocrisy. He said he doesn't like this bill, and he presumably isn't worried about re-election. Could it be that he hopes that if the bill is debated, McConnel may (try to) work with Democrats when he realizes he doesn't have the votes otherwise? I suspect McCain and other moderates are unhappy with McConnel because they were kept out of the loop as well when the thing was being written. I'm not sure though. I guess I'll just have to watch and see what happens.

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bclancy [6] -

    The first McConnell amendment already came up for a vote (on a 3.0 version of McConnellcare). Nine GOP senators voted no.

    McCain wasn't one of them.

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bclancy [22] -

    Oh, sure, McCain is easier to listen to than most GOPers. That's why he's on TV all the time.

    But he's still a hypocrite. "I want to see X. If I vote no, X will have to happen. If I vote yes, X may never happen, and everything anti-X in my speech I just railed against may happen." [then votes yes]

    McCain is plainly saying "I want regular order... but only after we try one last time to pass something on party lines that leadership wrote in secret with no regular order just to score another tribal "win", even though I think it probably should fail. Which is all bad, because we should be using regular order."

    If that isn't hypocrisy, what is?

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh sure he's done things that have disappointed me sometimes, and certainly I disagree with him on many issues. I didn't vote for him last year. But I do respect him.

    And THAT is exactly what is missing around here..

    Respect...

    I am as guilty of that as anyone else..

    The difference is, I admit it..

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    McCain is plainly saying "I want regular order... but only after we try one last time to pass something on party lines that leadership wrote in secret with no regular order just to score another tribal "win", even though I think it probably should fail. Which is all bad, because we should be using regular order."

    How is that any different than what Democrats did with TrainWreckCare???

    I am sure if I bothered to look, I could find many quotes from Democrats saying, "Well, gee whiz... It sure would be nice if we could pass this abortion thru normal means and be all nice and regular and respectful about it... But we can't so we're just going to ram it thru by hook or by crook, lying are asses off all along.."

    I seem to recall you commenting at the time, "Hay Folks.. It's how sausage is made..."

    But ya don't seem to like it when it's the GOP who is making the sausage... :D

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    But, as I said.. I completely agree with you..

    It's hypocritical... Blatant, unequivocal and dead on ballz hypocrisy...

    AKA Politics....

  28. [28] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Oh, just shoot me.

    I spent the last half hour writing a comment defending McCain.

    It's gone. Not because of any website malfunction; I was typing right into this box, and through some sequence of inadvertent keyboard and mouse the browser page reloaded.

    Right now I don't even remember how it was put together. I'll put it back together this evening. In a nutshell, I don't see the mtp vote as hypocrisy. He's a party elder. Party elders define legislative reality, which has two sides.

    One is managing the partisan and tribal issues which keeps their districts voting for them. McCain's vote to proceed was his support of the Leadership's decision to proceed.

    The other side of legislative reality formed by party elders is actual governance. {include metaphor of 6-year kenneled dogs being freed by big dog and wagging around their liberator. For a while.} The R's don't yet know how to govern, but McCain said in his speech health care is a life and death issue that requires governing.

    I believe what McCain commits to in his speech gets to the same place you need to get. Because "no" on mtp would insure that, you don't trust McCain. I do, and if he lies about his demands in that speech, I would share your utter contempt for the man.

    Political reality has two sides. The vote was the

  29. [29] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    That last sentence should have been deleted.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Political reality has two sides.

    Exactly.....

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    That last sentence should have been deleted.

    But it was the best of what you wrote..

    Loaded with so much meaning and dead on ballz accuracy, it practically explodes out of the screen!!!!

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The last sentence was:

    The vote was the

    Which I would guess is the one he said should be deleted.

  33. [33] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Not sure why you thought that was the best thing he wrote.

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How is that any different than ya'all and the rest of the Dumbocrats (notable exceptions noted) being against everything that President Trump is for??

    {{chhiiiirrrrrppppppp}} {{ccchhiiiirrrrppppppppp}}

    Yea... That's what I thought...

    How exactly am I supposed to answer your questions before you post them?

    Seeing how Trump hasn't bothered to put together any policy suggestions that aren't just random bullet points without any idea of what it will take to make them a reality, the Democrats have been right to oppose his glaring incompetence.

    The two things that Trump has been clear about is that he is only interested in repealing anything Obama did (for no other reason than Obama signed it into law) and that he is terrified at what Mueller is going to uncover in his investigation. (Spoiler Alert -- Money laundering for Russian oligarchs is what he hinted to in the NYTimes interview.)

    What is even sadder is your blind loyalty to his horrific lack of leadership and his constant lies.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump must really be scared about what the Russian investigation is going to uncover, as he is hoping to distract the Evangelicals by banning transgender individuals from serving in any capacity in our military.

    That'll cost our military around 15,000 full time personnel and up to 150,000 reservists. Trump hopes that their desire to discriminate against anyone they view as different will keep the Evangelicals from paying too much attention to the charges he will likely face.

    So much for him being the pro-LGBTQ President he claimed he would be!

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Political reality has two sides."
    NO.
    Political reality has one side (Big Money) pretending to be two sides.
    It is like Major League Baseball. The American and National leagues are technically two separate entities that together make up MLB.
    And that is the problem as there are often more than one or two sides on an issue.
    The most egregious hypocrisy is those that pretend there are two sides or only two sides.
    One more time just for fun:

    Kumar: You like to smoke weed and you put other people in jail for it?
    GWBush: DUH!
    Kumar: Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
    GWB: Let me ask you something, Kumar, do you like giving hand jobs?
    Kumar: No, sir.
    GWB: Do like getting hand jobs?
    Kumar: YES!
    GWB: Well then you're a hypocritizer ,too.
    -Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The vote was the

    Which I would guess is the one he said should be deleted.

    No, that was a sentence fragment..

    The last sentence written was 'Political Reality has two sides'...

    "No, Mr Hunter. That is a message fragment."
    -Captain Ramsey, CRIMSON TIDE

    :D

    How exactly am I supposed to answer your questions before you post them?

    I have faith in you... :D

    Trump must really be scared about what the Russian investigation is going to uncover, as he is hoping to distract the Evangelicals by banning transgender individuals from serving in any capacity in our military.

    OR......

    Or, after listening to military men, President Trump decided that having men and women who are confused about their gender is detrimental to the mission which is the ONLY priority when it comes to the military...

    I can't say I disagree...

    I dunno if I would want to ship out with someone who thinks they are a Klingon....

    What is even sadder is your blind loyalty to his horrific lack of leadership and his constant lies.

    That's your characterization, but it's a characterization brought about SOLELY based on Party zealotry...

    In other words, it's ya'all (NEN) who are exhibiting the blind loyalty, not me..

    I have condemned President Trump on several occasions when and where warranted..

    You cannot make the same claim for your leaders like Odumbo, Pelosi, NOT-45 etc etc etc..

  38. [38] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [14] - An EWO!

    Nope, a Mather-trained, sextant shooting, look out the window navigator, in the first years of the 70's, right out of college.

    Vietnam was causing and requiring logistical and mission changes in both US forces Europe and NATO. I was in a unit that helped implement those changes at the ground level, based in Frankfurt. Sometimes under USAF orders, and sometimes under NATO, we got to see a lot of bases in places like Turkey, where who-had-what was changing.

    All I ever saw of Asia in the USAF was from taking a ride one time on a C-141 to Clark, thence Tachikowa (sp?), and home via mainland thence FRA.

    Law Enforcement Supervisor with a K-9 designator

    One would see the dogs around the nukes, but also guarding a lot of other stuff. One time we went to the transient ramp at Torrejon, next to a long line of C-5's. Something had caused all of them to be immediately grounded worldwide and a bunch were in or landed in Madrid. The dogs were on the job for those.

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    This one's for us, LB.. :D

    "I expect and demand your very best. Anything less, you should have joined the Air Force!"
    -Captain Ramsey, CRIMSON TIDE

    Heh

  40. [40] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [36] - "Political reality has two sides." NO.

    I absolutely agree with NO. When I first wrote that, I meant legislative reality.

    The political reality is one side of that coin, the other side of which is fulfilling the duty to govern in the best interests of the people.

  41. [41] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [39] - Anything less, you should have joined the Air Force!

    Yeah, and it was always tedious to be anywhere social where either Jarheads or Swabbies were coming through.

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Or, after listening to military men, President Trump decided that having men and women who are confused about their gender is detrimental to the mission which is the ONLY priority when it comes to the military...

    I can't say I disagree...

    I dunno if I would want to ship out with someone who thinks they are a Klingon....

    Just when I thought you couldn't be any more ignorant, you reach deep down and pull out this little gem!

    First, I agree that Trump likely only conferred with military MEN, because they are the only ones whose opinions matter in ya'lls messed up minds!

    Second, TRANS PEOPLE ARE NOT CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR GENDER! They know exactly who they are and what gender they are. It is this knowledge that leads them to risk public scorn and discrimination in order to be true to themselves.

    I dunno if I would want to ship out with someone who thinks they are a Klingon....

    I have had to delete my response to this one five times now because I don't want to offend others with the words that I keep finding myself describing you with, so I will just say that at least you are honest with your bigotry! Trump tries to pin it on high medical costs as the reason he is getting rid of trans-military personnel, you just show your ignorance.

  43. [43] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    Dem amendment to return bill to committees for regular order fails, 48-52. Needed 2 GOP votes, got none.

    McCain voted against it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/health-care-senate-amendment-votes/?utm_term=.915221f9560d#committee

    Right there in the mirror, John.

    -CW

  44. [44] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: Political reality has two sides. Yes or No?

    I've been doing something else, but that has kept rolling around. Maybe it's yes.

    michale said yes, emphatically so.

    I said no, I typed that, rejected it, it sank to the bottom and didn't delete it, and meant legislative reality.

    But even if each Party may faces the duty to govern, as they see fit, they each will face a different political reality based on different principles, different constituencies.

    The answer would be, then, yes.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Second, TRANS PEOPLE ARE NOT CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR GENDER!

    If a person has guy plumbing but he thinks he's a girl..

    He's confused..

    First, I agree that Trump likely only conferred with military MEN, because they are the only ones whose opinions matter in ya'lls messed up minds!

    Men can't be transgendered??

    Isn't that bigoted of you???

    I have had to delete my response to this one five times now because I don't want to offend others with the words that I keep finding myself describing you with, so I will just say that at least you are honest with your bigotry!

    It's no more bigotry than if I say a person with asthma shouldn't be allowed to serve, etc etc..

    I read an article on this issue but I can't find it now..

    Basically, it said that our generals are worried about soldiers gender assignment surgery and whether they are comfortable in their new sex...

    The ENEMY generals are making IEDs and figuring out new and different ways to kill OUR soldiers...

    What you don't understand, Russ is that the ONLY PRIORITY that matters is the mission..

    Not some namby pamby political correctness or making sure all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines feel good about themselves and their genders...

    Transgenders are simply not good for the military as a whole...

    And no amount of liberal political correctness will change that...

    I won't even BOTHER mentioning the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars the military will have to spend to make people who are confused about their gender, the gender that they THINK they should be....

    The United States Military is NOT a social welfare program or a social justice laboratory...

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    "Thus spaketh the lord"
    -Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    Yeah, and it was always tedious to be anywhere social where either Jarheads or Swabbies were coming through.

    Oh gods, don't get me started...

    Okinawa had a full contingent of both, PLUS the Army was well-represented as well..

    Of course, the Air Force had the best clubs on the island, so that's where EVERYONE ended up on the Fri and Sat nights..

    Being an Air Force cop on Kadena was exciting!!! :D

    But we DID have to rough it.. Some of our patrol vehicles DIDN'T EVEN HAVE AC!!!

    :D

  48. [48] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CW - I'm going to have to hedge a bit on my defense of McCain.

    You're right, there are paths that are fraught. Vote to, say, repeal employer mandate and device tax. McCain looks at Ducey's list, says, "yep, that's what he wants," it passes, and goes to conference. House passes it back, it passes again, Trump signs it.

    But not all Trojan Horse votes would be that survivable for the ACA. Say, personal mandate.

    I'm still not worrying too much, but they're not above trying it.

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:
  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LWYH [34] two things that Trump has been clear about is that he is only interested in repealing anything Obama did (for no other reason than Obama signed it into law) and that he is terrified at what Mueller is going to uncover in his investigation

    Trump's decision to undermine his formerly loyal AG, rather than find some means to encourage him to resign through intermediaries (i.e., cut a deal), speaks volumes about the lengths that Trump is willing to go to, to undermine, obstruct, and ultimately end this investigation (and, curiously, the lengths he'll go not to display his supposed prowess at deal-making - something we've yet to see him even attempt, even on behalf of the Health Care Bill).

    Finally having caught on to the Presidents' game, Fox News has launched into assumption-laden attacks on Sessions. Sides are being chosen, and the Southern Caucus is once again being rolled by New York businessmen in pursuit of cover for their financial shenanigans. I'd bet Trump has some Harvard/Goldman Sachs alum already lined up for Sessions' job.

    Southerners have to catch on, eventually, to the fact that the Republicans want their votes, not their opinions. Too many are ready to trade that for the fact that east coast GOP businessmen are basically amoral, ready to look the other way when bigotry rears (unless it gets in the way of profits, of course).

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: [45] The United States Military is NOT a social welfare program or a social justice laboratory.

    Precisely what they said when Truman integrated the Armed forces (even Roosevelt wouldn't go that far, despite being locked in what he called 'existential conflict').

    Why not stop worrying about how and where soldiers pee, and be thankful that they're willing to pick up a gun and defend YOUR right to be whatever YOU want to be?

    You want to call yourself a patriot? Defend those patriots. They've earned it.

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's no more bigotry than if I say a person with asthma shouldn't be allowed to serve, etc etc..

    Oh, it's a good bit more bigoted as well as just plain stupid! Being trans is not a illness. There is nothing about being trans that would hinder a soldier's ability to do their job.

    What you don't understand, Russ is that the ONLY PRIORITY that matters is the mission..

    No, I understand that should be the priority, but iggits like you are more worried about who is peeing in the stall next to you.

    Transgenders are simply not good for the military as a whole...

    They serve our country with pride and honor, it's insecure little men like you that are the problem. Are you afraid that someone is going to assume you are pre-transitional if they see you nude?

    I won't even BOTHER mentioning the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars the military will have to spend to make people who are confused about their gender, the gender that they THINK they should be....

    The United States Military is NOT a social welfare program or a social justice laboratory...

    The military spends more on Viagra than they do on transitioning soldiers to the gender they identify as. It's not hundreds of billions, either. You keep sticking to your prejudices claiming that they are facts...

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Trust me, my family still supports the GOP -- complaining the whole time they do so about how horrible they are! It really is frustrating to have people you love recognizing how badly the Republicans treat them, but still enabling them to continue to screw them over. I swear it's like dealing with someone stuck in a relationship that suffers from domestic violence.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sex and gender aren't the same thing; the former is biological, the latter sociological. if someone "feels" like a particular gender, then that is what they are, irrespective of the positioning of their urethra or how many x chromosomes they have.

    as ugly as this latest pointless order to discriminate against yet another minority may be (and it is indeed ugly), it strikes me as primarily a shiny object to throw at the press so they'll pay less attention to the progress of deathcare and the passage of sanctions on russia.

    JL

  55. [55] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    As others pointed out, and I didn't see, McCain voted yea on the Cruz amendment. So I guess I was wrong about him.

    -B

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bclancy,

    These are "courtesy votes". McCain, I am told, may have something up his sleeve ... we are living in strange times where anything, it seems, is possible.

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, it's a good bit more bigoted as well as just plain stupid! Being trans is not a illness. There is nothing about being trans that would hinder a soldier's ability to do their job.

    Being trans is a mental condition.

    No, I understand that should be the priority, but iggits like you are more worried about who is peeing in the stall next to you.

    If it's proven to be detrimental to the mission, as it HAS been, then yes...

    They serve our country with pride and honor, it's insecure little men like you that are the problem.

    Many MANY Americans want to serve their country with pride and honor but for various reasons are rejected...

    What's your point??

    Are you afraid that someone is going to assume you are pre-transitional if they see you nude?

    It has nothing to do with that and you know it.. It has to do with how it affects the mission... period..

    The military spends more on Viagra than they do on transitioning soldiers to the gender they identify as.

    If you can prove that, I will reconsider my point. But prove it with some NON-Left Wing rags....

    Even if it were true, how is that relevant???

    It's not hundreds of billions, either. You keep sticking to your prejudices claiming that they are facts...

    Using YOUR numbers it is.. Billions at least...

    According to your numbers, the trans ban will cost the military 165,000 military members.. The costs of M-F gender re-assignment surgery is in the 20,000 range...

    You can do the math...

    But all of that is besides the point..

    The US Military is not a social justice petri dish... The Mission is priority NUMBER ONE and *ALL* other considerations are below the mission..

    If it's determined that having trans in the military will be detrimental to the mission, then there will be no trans in the military...

    It's THAT simple.. And if trans DO want to serve out of loyalty to their country, then they should understand that and accept that...

    In essence, trans have been given an order from their commander in chief NOT to join the military.. If they have a problem following orders, then it's obvious that the military is not for them...

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    sex and gender aren't the same thing; the former is biological, the latter sociological. if someone "feels" like a particular gender, then that is what they are, irrespective of the positioning of their urethra or how many x chromosomes they have.

    Pure hookum....

    If I "feel" like a Klingon, that doesn't make me a Klingon...

    I can have all the feelings I want, all the surgery I want... I will NEVER be a Klingon...

    And if I "feel" I am a Klingon and I insist that society treats me as a Klingon then that indicates I have a severe mental imbalance and, as such, I am not fit for military duty...

    So it is with trans...

    A male that is born a male will ALWAYS be male. Bruce Jenner will ALWAYS be a male. No matter how many surgeries he has, Bruce will ALWAYS be a he...

    These are the facts.. And they are indisputable...

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Precisely what they said when Truman integrated the Armed forces (even Roosevelt wouldn't go that far, despite being locked in what he called 'existential conflict').

    And if we were living in the 40s and the 50s, you would have a point.

    But we're not, so you don't..

    There may come a day when trans can serve in the military...

    But today is not that day...

    "There will come a day when your people will be once again welcomed back to Atlantis. But today is not that day."
    -Captain Helia, STARGATE ATLANTIS

    Why not stop worrying about how and where soldiers pee, and be thankful that they're willing to pick up a gun and defend YOUR right to be whatever YOU want to be?

    Do not presume to know my motivations..

    It's impossible for those who haven't served to understand them...

    You want to call yourself a patriot? Defend those patriots. They've earned it.

    For what, exactly?? What have they done above and beyond any American that deserves defense??

    That is the inherent bigoted flaw in your argument..

    You claim on the one hand that transgendered are just like everyone else and should be treated just like everyone else. Well, they are being treated like everyone else. They have a mental condition that precludes them from joining the military.

    On the other hand, you want to put transes on a pedastal and claim they are ooo sooo pure and "deserve" better treatment...

    You need to clarify your OWN thought processes before you even COME CLOSE to assuming mine...

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    B,

    As others pointed out, and I didn't see, McCain voted yea on the Cruz amendment. So I guess I was wrong about him.

    About his motivations on this particular issue, perhaps..

    But your overall assessment of his character is spot on..

    Me, personally, I used to be a big fan of McCain.. But he started to take his POW status a bit too far and it blinded him to certain realities..

    But he served with honor and distinction in the US Armed Forces and has done nothing to diminish or denigrate that service..

    For that, he will always have my respect...

  61. [61] 
    michale wrote:

    Why not stop worrying about how and where soldiers pee, and be thankful that they're willing to pick up a gun and defend YOUR right to be whatever YOU want to be?

    Do not presume to know my motivations..

    It's impossible for those who haven't served to understand them...

    If anyone here has served in the US military and has seen combat, I will be happy to explain my motivations to those who can understand them...

    Anyone not part of that group has NO WAY in hell of understanding them...

    It's that simple...

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Trump's decision to undermine his formerly loyal AG, rather than find some means to encourage him to resign through intermediaries (i.e., cut a deal),

    President Trump has all the reasons he needs to fire AG Sessions..

    And, considering what has transpired, I don't think that President Trump should waste any more time..

    Fire Sessions.. Promote Brand to AG, bypassing a Senate Confirmation hearing or by recess appt...

    Brand fires Mueller for the obvious conflict of interests...

    And this country's government can get back to doing what it's SUPPOSED to do...

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    So, let's look at the FACTS...

    Over half of trans people (53%) ages 18 to 25 have reported experiencing current serious psychological distress. That compares to 10% in the nation overall...

    40% of trans people have attempted suicide in their lives. That compares to less than 5% of the general population..

    48% of trans people have seriously thought about killing themselves in the past year. 4% of the U.S. population has seriously thought the same...

    A full 82% of trans people have thought about killing themselves at some point in their lives..

    29% of trans have used illegal drugs or non prescribed drugs in the past month.. Normal US population for that is almost 3 times as less.. 10% . .

    The presence of HIV or AIDS is also much MUCH higher amongst the trans group than the general population..

    And THIS is the group that should be considered for military duty???

    Yea.. If you want the military of Venezuela... :^/

    The high rate of suicides and suicidal thoughts alone are sufficient to disqualify ANYONE from military service..

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    I've been doing something else, but that has kept rolling around. Maybe it's yes.

    michale said yes, emphatically so.

    I said no, I typed that, rejected it, it sank to the bottom and didn't delete it, and meant legislative reality.

    But even if each Party may faces the duty to govern, as they see fit, they each will face a different political reality based on different principles, different constituencies.

    The answer would be, then, yes.

    "Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
    -Austin Powers

    :D

    I broke it down more simply than you did, LB.. I am a simple knuckle-dragging ground pounder after all.. :D

    I simply meant that every question, every issue always has TWO sides...

    If they didn't, there wouldn't be any need for Political Partys and we would all live in conflict free bliss...

    One of my inherent talents, besides my impressive capacity for modesty and humbleness :D, is my ability to be able to see both sides of an issue with an objective eye...

    This does not lend itself to EVERY issue or EVERY point to be sure.. But, by and large it works..

    Take the OJ Simpson issue...

    On the one hand, I can see the raw emotional side and the circumstantial evidence that is piles upon piles and can easily understand why people would think he is guilty as hell..

    On the other hand, there is the prosecution's timeline that, if accurate, proves beyond ANY doubt that OJ simply could NOT have been the murderer...

    So I can see both sides of the issue and recognize the valid points in both..

    All it takes is a good dose of objectivity and the ability to step back and take in the WHOLE picture, rather than just cherry picking the parts that make one all warm and fuzzy and ignoring the rest...

    I am an investigator by trade, training and experience and such an ability is vital...

    And, as I mentioned, a VERY healthy chunk of modesty and humility... :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    it strikes me as primarily a shiny object to throw at the press so they'll pay less attention to the progress of deathcare and the passage of sanctions on russia.

    AND no one is talking about the Democrats and their "better deal, better pizza" debacle :D

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Being trans is not a illness.

    gen·der dys·pho·ri·a
    ?jend?r dis?fôr??/Submit
    nounMEDICINE
    the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.

    Scientists and doctors disagree with you...

    A medical condition.. It's a disorder.. It was even called Gender Identity Disorder before the Politically Correct types got involved..

    MANY medical conditions and/or disorders disqualify the person afflicted from serving in the US Military..

    Gender Identity Disorder is simply one of them...

    Recognizing this FACT has NOTHING to do with bigotry and everything to do with facts and reality...

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Precisely what they said when Truman integrated the Armed forces (even Roosevelt wouldn't go that far, despite being locked in what he called 'existential conflict').

    Being black wasn't a medical condition or a mental disorder and, as such, has absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the current discussion..

    But I'll give you an 'E' for effort to muddy the waters with hysterical, irrelevant and insignificant comparisons...

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    U.S. judge allows first transgender person to sue under disability law

    A U.S. judge ruled on Thursday that a transgender woman could move forward with a sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though it explicitly excludes transgender people from protection.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-allows-first-transgender-person-sue-under-010304130--finance.html

    Not only is Gender Identity Disorder a disorder, apparently it's ALSO a disability...

    Having a disability clearly disqualifies someone for military service..

    It's not bigotry to point that out..

    It's logic.. It's reality...

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    This is simply another PERFECT example of the Democrat Party cherry-picking it's "science" to conform with it's Party ideology and ignoring the REAL science that is not ideologically acceptable...

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump's Trans Ban Horrifies Hollywood
    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-july-trump-s-transgender-military-policy-1501083645-htmlstory.html

    Great!!! Awesome!!!

    Anything that "horrifies" Hollywood HAS to be great for this country.... :D

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Military fitness is a MILITARY decision...

    Those that can't understand that prove that their opinions are not relevant...

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    I read an article on this issue but I can't find it now..

    Basically, it said that our generals are worried about soldiers gender assignment surgery and whether they are comfortable in their new sex...

    The ENEMY generals are making IEDs and figuring out new and different ways to kill OUR soldiers...

    AHA!!!!

    The U.S. Military Rewrites the Basic Laws of Biology...What's Next?

    James Hasson, a former army captain, did the world a great service by publishing pages from “Tier Three Transgender Training,” a new set of procedures for commanding officers in a recent article for the Federalist. The training manual contains a number of vignettes, addressing stuff like how showering should be handled and how to conduct a urine test, whether the transgender soldier is the tester or the testee. The training manual contains such gems as women soldiers may be asked to share a shower room with a soldier who, because "she did not under go a surgical change...still has male genitalia." Hasson’s article skipped one “vignette.” That’s too bad because it shows just how far the military is willing to go to satisfy a president and congress. It's quite Orwellian, in the sense that in the novel 1984 arch-villain O’Brien tells Winston Smith there is no reality. "We, the Party, control reality. If we want to say 2 + 2 = 5, it is so.”

    In similar fashion, the U.S. military has gone ahead and declared that men can become pregnant. Vignette 6 of Tier Three Transgender Training instructs commanding officers what to do when “a soldier has completed Army gender transition from female to male as indicated in DEERS.”

    “The Soldier did not have sex-reassignment surgery, and recently stopped taking male hormones in order to start a family.”

    “Today the Soldier approached his commanding officer to discuss his newly confirmed pregnancy.”

    Great, while our commanding officers are trying to remember what pronoun to use when addressing a soldier who’s stopped taking his male hormones but not had gender reassignment surgery and has just announced his newly confirmed pregnancy, our enemies abroad only have to worry about the lethality of their IEDs, the best placement of a suicide bomb, and whether that ICBM can make it to California.
    http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/07/20/the_us_military_rewrites_the_basic_laws_of_biologywhats_next_111850.html

    Only those who have served can understand how chillingly laughable this whole subject is...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump's military transgender ban is unfair but correct

    When it comes to LGBT politics it is sexuality first, country second. It is just the opposite when you are POTUS.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/26/trump-trans-ban-prioritizes-national-security-joseph-murray-column/513373001/

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all see, that is the point ya'all don't get..

    It IS unfair to prevent trans people from serving..

    It IS discriminatory and it IS bigotry of a sort...

    But we're talking the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES and "FAIR" doesn't enter into the equation...

    By definition, the US Military *HAS* to be discriminatory and "bigoted".. THAT is what gets us the best fighting force on the planet...

    THAT's the facts that ya'all ignore and THAT's why ya'all's arguments fail..

    Do ya'all want a military that is politically correct or do you want the strongest and meanest fighting force on the planet??

    And no.. You can't have both...

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military."
    -Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado

    So, this moron doesn't see a problem with letting ANYONE serve if they want to...

    Yea... That will give us a military on par with Venezuela or Somalia...

    Where do these ignoramuses come from!??

    Surely not the United States Military...

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    -Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado

    Ahhhh He was a DEMOCRAT...

    THAT explains a lot....

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all see, that is the point ya'all don't get..

    It IS unfair to prevent trans people from serving..

    It IS discriminatory and it IS bigotry of a sort...

    But we're talking the UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES and "FAIR" doesn't enter into the equation...

    I guess I could have lead with that and eliminated the entire debate... :D

    "Perhaps next time you should START with the big one!!
    -Fandral, THOR: DARK WORLD

    :D

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    you may know something about serving in the military, but you know exactly zilch about mental illness. "gender dysphoria" has been declassified by the APA after they determined it wasn't a disorder - much as homosexuality has not been classified as a disorder since 1973. if you are not willing to consider my opinion on military matters, i am in no way inclined to give any credence to your opinions in areas where i'm credentialed and you're not.

    JL

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    but you know exactly zilch about mental illness. "gender dysphoria" has been declassified by the APA after they determined it wasn't a disorder - much as homosexuality has not been classified as a disorder since 1973.

    As I said... Once the Left Wing political correct types got ahold of things..

    i am in no way inclined to give any credence to your opinions in areas where i'm credentialed and you're not.

    Fair enough.. If you are willing to accept and acknowledge my military/security/LEO expertise, I will be happy to reciprocate.. :D

    Ultimately, this IS a military issue....

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    "gender dysphoria" has been declassified by the APA after they determined it wasn't a disorder -

    Cite???

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    It's still unclear how exactly President Trump will formalize his decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military in any capacity. In the future, he should make things clear, direct, and formal before tweeting like a millennial from the hip (but the world should be full of unicorns too, so life is full of disappointments). But if the tweets from Wednesday eventually take the form of an executive order, Trump made the right decision, however impulsive it was and unpopular it may sound.

    The U.S. military has one goal: Protect and defend. Or as Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution reads, "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

    The goal of the military is not a social experiment; it's not even to see who is the most patriotic. (I'm a patriot but I couldn't physically do what's required of many of our service people.) Its job is not to see if men and women can both do the same amount of push-ups, or if a woman can hold up in a unit of mostly men without interrupting the männerbund, or if a woman who identifies as a man can drag a 170-pound male away from heavy gun fire.

    Its job is not to pay for people to have elective surgeries so they feel more like a woman or a man.

    While trans activists, including Caitlyn Jenner, are understandably upset about the ban, many members of the military who have seen active combat both support transgenders and agree with Trump's decision, not because they are mean, old-fashioned bigots but because they view the active recognition of transgenders in the military as more of a petri dish of social experiments, wrapped in a progressive agenda.

    There may be a place for that -- the military is not that place.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-transgender-military-ban-is-psychologically-justified/article/2629868

    Word.....

    That's the point that NONE of ya'all who have responded get...

    There may be a place to expand transgender rights..

    The MILITARY is *NOT* that place...

    It's that simple...

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    Opinions on this vary of course, but being transgender is not a biological issue, it's a psychological one. If a 98-pound woman was starving herself because she thought she was fat, would you tell her that's okay so she feels good about herself, or would you gently tell her she's emaciated, hurting her body, and needs to look to the path of recovery?

    This Johns Hopkins psychiatrist believes making drastic physical changes, such as undergoing transgender reassignment surgery, do nothing to help the psychological troubles plaguing the mind of the transgender person -- in fact, it can make them worse. That's why throwing people who are already struggling with their own identity, psychologically and, in their minds, physically, into a combative, war-torn, physically-demanding, mentally-exhausting environment may make units fall apart, thereby rendering the military less effective than before.

    This veteran says it best:

    Follow
    J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman
    In war if it comes down to kill or be killed, and you hesitate, you're dead. It's a simple as that. It's not a fucking video game.

    War is no place for people who are mentally, emotionally, or physically confused or in turmoil. You have your shit together, or you don't.

    Word x2...

    Given the **facts** in comment #63 (YCNMV) there is absolutely *NO WAY* that *ANYONE* could argue that transgenders are well adjusted and have their shit together..

    I don't care HOW many credentials you have...

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    11

    I could list hundreds, if not thousands, more lies that come from the Dumbocrat Party...

    Yes, please spend your time that way. *LOL* I'm not sure who you're trying to convince or why you'd want to since I already stated in my post: "Obviously it's not unusual for politicians to lie."

    The simple FACT is lying is a way of life for politicians.

    Really?! You don't say. :)

    NEITHER Party has a lock on lying and BOTH Partys do it equally..

    Oh, the "both sides are equal" argument. We get it. That statement right there pretty much sums up the repetitive argument that you beat on daily like the proverbial dead horse: Both sides do it "equally."

    As far as lying is concerned, there is simply no one who can touch Donald Trump in that department. He lies regularly and often... a pathological liar and con artist with no equal in politics.

    But ya'all ONLY care about "lying" when it comes from the Right.. Ya'all are PERFECTLY fine with lying when it comes from the Left...

    Oh, this is the part of your comment where you lie about posters and succeed at nothing more than proving you're a prolific liar. I care about lying from both sides, and anyone who says otherwise is LYING. :)

    So, please.. Spare us the righteous indignation about lying... It's hollow and meaningless...

    *LOL* "Spare us." If you're scared by the itty bitty words and the facts hurt you, then please feel free to skip my posts because I won't "spare" the facts.

    Donald Trump is a pathological liar who is the most prolific liar ever to occupy the White House. He has no equal in the lying department. He is such a lying con artist that he even lies about lying. That is a fact. Anyone who actually believes that Donald Trump lies "equally" is simply deluding themselves and/or not paying very good attention. :)

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    54

    as ugly as this latest pointless order to discriminate against yet another minority may be (and it is indeed ugly), it strikes me as primarily a shiny object to throw at the press so they'll pay less attention to the progress of deathcare and the passage of sanctions on russia.

    Exactly right. The good news is:

    * There's no such thing as an official order over Twitter so don't be surprised if Trump is overruled on this by those who serve this country as a career and not just a dumb ass with a 4-year term.

    * Trump can attempt to distract all he wants, the fact that Mueller is on the job means it's futile. :)

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    * Trump can attempt to distract all he wants, the fact that Mueller is on the job means it's futile. :)

    And the fact that Mueller is going to be fired means that HIS actions are futile.. :D

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB,

    *LOL* "Spare us." If you're scared by the itty bitty words and the facts hurt you, then please feel free to skip my posts because I won't "spare" the facts.

    Yea.. Lemme know when you have any facts.. :D

    Because, my dear Victoria, to date all you have had is personal attacks, extortion/threats and flame wars.. :D

Comments for this article are closed.