• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge blocks enforcement of Trump's transgender military ban

Bassman said:
Compromising military integrity for social engineering. That's the Lefty way.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what conservatives said when Truman integrated the Army in 1948. What? Have black man in the same troop as white men?
 
Bassman said:
You deny this is happening right now, even though we warned you that this WOULD happen?
Click to expand...

Are you a latent homosexual, its cool but the GOP says you can be gay and a conservative. Come on out, bring your speedo, have some fun, sorry no females allowed.
 
Southern Dad said:
Big question, does this mean that a future president will be unable to decide whom can enlist in the military or remain in the military? Today it is transgendered. What if it was those in plural marriages? What if it was a president saying that those with racist beliefs cannot enlist? Can a president determine who can serve in the military?
Click to expand...
As the Supreme Court often says, "that's a matter left for another day."
 
yankintx said:
Are you a latent homosexual, its cool but the GOP says you can be gay and a conservative. Come on out, bring your speedo, have some fun, sorry no females allowed.
Click to expand...

Nope, living the RIGHT way. straight AND married to the same gal. And the GOP today is a fooking joke when it comes to Social conservatism.
 
Southern Dad said:
Big question, does this mean that a future president will be unable to decide whom can enlist in the military or remain in the military? Today it is transgendered. What if it was those in plural marriages? What if it was a president saying that those with racist beliefs cannot enlist? Can a president determine who can serve in the military?
Click to expand...

The president has that authority, now.
 
Bassman said:
See your problem is you would want America to be twisted and contorted so that REAL Americans are relegated to Concentration Camps. Oh, BTW, hope you are happy, the NAMBLA crowd are crowing for their "rights" also, and I bet you support them 100% Sexual deviancy is just wrong on all fronts.
Click to expand...

Wow...you really are terrified that someone who is transgender is going to affect you life in a horrible way.

Don't let irrational fear rule you.
 
apdst said:
That isn't what The Constitution says.

Either way, the courts donxt have a role.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the court does, but article 1 section 8 does have to do with congress authority.
 
Praxas said:
I didn't say the court does, but article 1 section 8 does have to do with congress authority.
Click to expand...

The topic is about a judge changing DOD policy; a power the courts do not have.
 
Once we have a President who does not cave into the knuckle draggers all of this will be reversed. See you at the next indictment !!
 
apdst said:
The topic is about a judge changing DOD policy; a power the courts do not have.
Click to expand...

The courts can intercede if they determine the president is acting unconstitutional in his/her restrictions on who can join the military. For instance, the president can't just dictate that all blacks are banned from the military. The question that remains is does transgender fall under that protection.
 
Bassman said:
It's the next logical step for these degenerates. Once homosexual "rights" are granted, the floodgates open up to all sorts of other sexual perversion to be mainstreamed.
Click to expand...

LMAO :lamo
Again thank you for proving why nobody honest, educated an objective would have take retarded claims like the one you just made seriously

Please explain how equal rights leads to child rape which is the opposite of equal rights we'd LOVE to read it

:popcorn2:
 
Praxas said:
The courts can intercede if they determine the president is acting unconstitutional in his/her restrictions on who can join the military. For instance, the president can't just dictate that all blacks are banned from the military. The question that remains is does transgender fall under that protection.
Click to expand...

In this case, he isn't acting unconstitutionally.
 
Bassman said:
Liberals want these sick perverts mainstreamed.
Click to expand...

Well, that can't be true. Only their fellow pedophiles want such a thing accepted. And sexual perversion is not synonymous with liberalism. After all, aren't Catholic priests conservative in nature?
 
apdst said:
In this case, he isn't acting unconstitutionally.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, but that remains to be seen by the courts.
 
MSgt said:
Well, that can't be true. Only their fellow pedophiles want such a thing accepted. And sexual perversion is not synonymous with liberalism. After all, aren't Catholic priests conservative in nature?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes it can. Even now there's movement to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, just like homosexuality was.
 
apdst said:
You mean, Congress? The courts can't create law.
Click to expand...

Determining if someone is acting constitutional or not IS the job of the courts.
 
Bassman said:
Actually, yes it can. Even now there's movement to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, just like homosexuality was.
Click to expand...

Yep a minority of people. VERY small group.
 
Praxas said:
Determining if someone is acting constitutional or not IS the job of the courts.
Click to expand...

The President is acting constitutionally. Any judge that doesn't know that should be impeached.
 
Bassman said:
Compromising military integrity for social engineering. That's the Lefty way.
Click to expand...

Hey, Bassman. The 1950's called - they'd like their everything back.
 
apdst said:
The topic is about a judge changing DOD policy; a power the courts do not have.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting topic. A judge makes decisions based on Constitution, written law, argument, etc. Since the military is oathed to uphold the Constitution, the judge does inadvertently affect how military policy is constructed.

However, when it comes to free speech, an issue that judges usually err on the side of, this cannot be extended to the military because it promotes poor discipline, protest to orders, and anarchy. Every judge knows this and agrees to the argument. They also agree that paraplegics and the blind can't enlist. A judge would have to be persuaded that homosexuals and whatever else is bad for good military discipline in order to agree that they may not enlist.

I have not come across a single argument that works. Since gays and transgender folk were scattered within the military long before it became a political discussion, their existence was never the problem. People being asked to face it was. The only argument I ever considered as possibly legit was whether or not it being out in the open among the fire team was going to be a problem. Apparently, it isn't. This may be due to the fact that the vast majority join the Air Force or a trade MOS in the Army. I knew a gay Corpsman once in my first infantry unit (92-95). He wasn't open about it, but we knew. We also didn't care.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom