What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Patine]

I’ve never not liked the democratic candidate for president in my lifetime.

Have you actually listened to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton campaign, done research on them, followed their Senate and Secretary of State careers (funny that they both had both positions aside from being failed Democratic Presidential candidates), checked their personal ties to their opponent (the Clintons and Trump had a history of being good, with the Clintons attending one of Trump's weddings - and not as party crashers - and both Kerry and Bush belonged to the same Princeton secret society - Skull and Bones - well known for politically powerful - and intertwined - alumni), the fact that Kerry only disagreed with Bush with any firm and solid conviction on some domestic issues, but completely supported, just in clever paraphrasing, Bush's war efforts and complete violation of the U.S. Constitution that was the Un(Patriot) Act, etc. Those two elections really struck me, at least, as exactly what I said they were.

 

[Arwon]

It might, in an indirect way. Hormone imbalances can cause a person's body to go haywire in a number of ways. That could affect their performance on the battlefield in a negative way which would increase the chances of getting either themselves or their fellow soldiers killed.

This is something the military should study extensively though in order to determine what issues, if any, might arise from putting trans soldiers on the battlefield.

Why would this be any different than any other condition which involves regular medication?

It appears the US military has pretty detailed policies for this that goes into quite a lot of detail about both disqualifying conditions and medications for deployment, medical waivers, and some stuff that gets individual assessment. I can't imagine why hormone therapy would be any different to the stuff covered here in a fair amount of nuance.

I'd also venture that Donald Trump is significantly less well placed to make judgement about these medical/operational matters than the actual military and medical personnel who were previously making it (and who continue to make the judgement in many comparable countries).

 

[Hygro]

Have you actually listened to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton campaign, done research on them, followed their Senate and Secretary of State careers (funny that they both had both positions aside from being failed Democratic Presidential candidates), checked their personal ties to their opponent (the Clintons and Trump had a history of being good, with the Clintons attending one of Trump's weddings - and not as party crashers - and both Kerry and Bush belonged to the same Princeton secret society - Skull and Bones - well known for politically powerful - and intertwined - alumni), the fact that Kerry only disagreed with Bush with any firm and solid conviction on some domestic issues, but completely supported, just in clever paraphrasing, Bush's war efforts and complete violation of the U.S. Constitution that was the Un(Patriot) Act, etc. Those two elections really struck me, at least, as exactly what I said they were.

You can check my post history from the times.

 

[Kyriakos]

This entire maga thing is about anti-otaku/millennial/antifa etc.

¬(¬A)⇔A

Manga⇔¬(¬Manga)

Therefore, Maga= ¬Manga.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is something the military should study extensively though in order to determine what issues, if any, might arise from putting trans soldiers on the battlefield.

They did! That's how it came to pass that they were allowed to join in the first place. Then Trump came and gave a political directive to undo the policy. The DoD has even fought it at multiple steps!

 

[caketastydelish]

They did! That's how it came to pass that they were allowed to join in the first place. Then Trump came and gave a political directive to undo the policy. The DoD has even fought it at multiple steps!

Thank you for providing me with this information.

 

[Commodore]

Why would this be any different than any other condition which involves regular medication?

It isn't. But depending on the condition and medication required, they either aren't deployed at all, or will deploy, but will be prohibited from going on patrols or conducting other combat-related activities. Basically they will never leave the FOB.

I'm not saying that's how trans soldiers should be treated, I'm just providing additional information based on my own experience in the military.

well placed to make judgement about these medical/operational matters than the actual military and medical personnel who were previously making it (and who continue to make the judgement in many comparable countries

That may be true. However, since the Constitution says the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces Trump, for better or worse, kinda has the final say in the matter (to an extent).

 

[Berzerker]

its pay back for Chelsea Manning

 

[Berzerker]

Meh, you just think that spouting piles of racist things doesn't mean you're racist.

I think letting a bunch of black people out of jail and making sure others wont suffer in their place are not the actions of a racist. Do you think Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are racist for putting them there?

After publishing false statistics about their criminality*? After exclaiming over and over that Kaepernick was an SOB**?

Dude, Trump also bragged (falsely) about the size of his electoral college victory (months after he'd been corrected, btw). The fact that he'll try to take credit for something doesn't mean much. He'll say anything that he thinks might make him look good. He pimped Trump University, for goodness sake.

He called Kaep an SOB for kneeling during the anthem and citing false stats is common. Trump goes after people regardless of race and a bunch of people were pissed at Kaep and race had nothing to do with it. I dont think Trump and the uber patriot crowd would have reacted differently if the kneelers were white.

Do you think Republicans should stand up to racists in their party?

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans" - Donald Trump

You have a serious misconception on what it requires to be racist @Berzerker. I've seen people raise their black grandkids and be racist. Love and racism aren't even mutually exclusive. Not that Trump loves african americans, his long business and political history indicates he is not a fan.

His recent political history was a significant rollback of the drug war pushed by people calling him racist, people responsible for the mass incarceration of black people.

Can we vote for candidates that support continued college discrimination against Asian Americans without being racists or not?

They're white when it comes to racial totem poles

Well, Democrats only started to seriously in the 1960's. Even then, George Wallace and Robert Byrd were looming figures for quite a while after that.

Nah, they replaced Jim Crow with a drug war and burgeoning prison system

 

[Cloud_Strife]

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans" - Donald Trump

Coming from the mouth of a racist, this has no meaning or sincerity.

 

[Berzerker]

it has meaning for the people he condemned

 

[Gorbles]

I read it as a statement of fact and not as an argument. That question will be settled in November and we see just how much of the country sees it as loathsome.

I'm a bit late to this Birdjaguar, but the entire defense that was being invoked about how voting Republican doesn't necessarily mean you share all of their values means by definition you can't invoke the popular vote as some kind of moral ruling on the state of the Republican party.

Folks can't have it both ways.

 

[Arwon]

That may be true. However, since the Constitution says the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces Trump, for better or worse, kinda has the final say in the matter (to an extent).

Yeah, nobody's disputing he has the power, but ideally these things would be fully delegated. That's one benefit of having a ceremonial head of state, be they president or monarch, I guess.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The named topic is one thing; what people are discussing varies a bit.

The problem with "ranking" how "bad" particular issues are is this is invariably viewed from a lens of being unaffected by one or more of the issues involved. But to answer your point about precedence, yes, unilaterally revoking protections for a minority on the most charitable interpretation of "Obama made the protections happen" is an incredibly juvenile and yes, worrying approach to national politics. At worst, it's overt discrimination from a federal body. For example, had Trump banned everyone wearing MAGA hats from serving in the military? Would that change your reaction?

Still doesn't matter what people are discussing here.

I don't necessarily see it as a precedent. It certainly hasn't been shown to be so far.

Are you saying that you would refuse to discuss or acknowledge any difference between only being able to take out 4 library books, instead of 5 like everyone else, versus being forcibly imprisoned, just because there's a "problem" with ranking issues?

I would also imagine that MAGA hats are also already explicitly not part of the uniform. Hats can be removed.

 

[Estebonrober]

So while the First Step Act might help a bit it is hardly a game changer for PoC. The Senate knew this and thus one has to recognize that Trump knew it. So. . .

I still give him credit for it being one of the only things decent out of his administration of pillage and plunder and stupid, but its not the game changer you seem to think it is @Berzerker

 

[hobbsyoyo]

One other thing with soldiers that are trans - it is often thrown about how expensive the treatment is for the military. But that's a morally bankrupt argument in my opinion and it is basically an acknowledgement that the 'combat readiness' argument has been disproven. If we're going to start bean counting the benefits, we should first start kicking out the parents that join to get Tricare for their cancerous kids, or expensive treatment for psoriasis, or other people who joined for similar generous benefits. Heck, why don't we acknowledge the impact that government-subsidized housing has on local markets and start taking away soldier's housing benefits as well? I mean, ultimately, the tax payer is on the hook twice; first when they pay the housing benefit and second when that benefits drives up housing prices and property taxes.

It's a bit absurd to target one benefit for one group of people, especially so when the DoD studied this and said it would have no impact on combat readiness. And it is not even optional for them, if you are trans you have to transition; that's how it works.


But banning it is bad enough. The real absurdity is rolling this back after they were allowed in. Do you think it is good for unit cohesion to have one of their comrades kicked out of the service? Soldiers may be conservative but they're also young and millennials are noted for LGBTQ acceptance. I doubt very much that many of them are happy when their units get messed with like this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm a bit late to this Birdjaguar, but the entire defense that was being invoked about how voting Republican doesn't necessarily mean you share all of their values means by definition you can't invoke the popular vote as some kind of moral ruling on the state of the Republican party.

Folks can't have it both ways.

The two sides of this argument are pretty far apart. As someone who is mostly just reading the thread, I was pointing out that when I read and reread the post I took it for a statement of fact being made that would be proven or not in November. I made my weigh in on the whole issue early in the thread.

 

[Gorbles]

Still doesn't matter what people are discussing here.

I don't necessarily see it as a precedent. It certainly hasn't been shown to be so far.

Are you saying that you would refuse to discuss or acknowledge any difference between only being able to take out 4 library books, instead of 5 like everyone else, versus being forcibly imprisoned, just because there's a "problem" with ranking issues?

I would also imagine that MAGA hats are also already explicitly not part of the uniform. Hats can be removed.

I think the entire theoretical construct of borrowing library books is so far removed from everything raised in this thread, it's a struggle to relate it to the topic at hand. Certainly, I think if that's your comparison to a marginalised minority being discriminated out of military service, I think you're unfairly trivialising said discrimination.

You don't see it as precedent, that's all that I really need to know. I certainly can't convince you that it could be, but I have to say, personally, it's very frustrating that we can't go one thread about leftists activists without people talking about the danger extremist activism theoretically represents, but in threads like this I have to go on for so long to find out that people don't see a similar potential threat in literal federal action against a minority. I don't expect you to agree, I'm simply explaining why I feel so strongly, not just because of minority rights, but because of what I perceive to be a lack of consistency in the arguments presented.

It would be a lot easier for me to understand (even though I'd likely disagree on the particulars) if folks like yourself were consistently against anything that could be abused by bad-faith people, instead of selectively against these kinds of things.

The two sides of this argument are pretty far apart. As someone who is mostly just reading the thread, I was pointing out that when I read and reread the post I took it for a statement of fact being made that would be proven or not in November. I made my weigh in on the whole issue early in the thread.

Well, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree on it being a statement of fact. Fair enough

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not really discrimination in that sort of case, as with Catholic reproductive ethics refusals TF raised. It's just inadequate care, and a powerful argument for keeping religious administration out of the provision of healthcare services. We have two hospitals in my city, the one in the north is Catholic (still run on public money). Inasmuch as their Catholic administration interferes with their health services delivery, which seems to be a thing, that's not on, and if they can't provide the full spectrum of healthcare as required they really should be removed from provision of healthcare all together.

Coherent positions require consistent utilities. He literally can't selectively interpret blanket refusals this way and still be consistent.

Your position is awkward too, as even simple resource constraints prevent hospitals from "providing the full spectrum of healthcare", yet those hospitals are still valuable and in many cases life-saving regardless.

Also a trauma center doing any elective procedure would be pretty odd.

 

[El_Machinae]

That the military/transgender issue was less bad than the MAGA tweet demanded is a function of bureaucrats. It wasn't a function of MAGA hatfolk thinking the tweet had gone too far.