Trump Bans Transgenders from the Military

[Tgo01]

You already know I was talking about the popular vote polls. You don't want to talk about them because it severely undercuts your argument.

I don't want to talk about them because NO ONE was basing their predictions on nation wide popular vote polls. NO ONE. This is yet another one of your pathetic distractions bullshit because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, again, and have to fall back on something you (almost) know what you're talking about in some sort of distraction.

I already knew you were talking about the popular vote? Who gives a shit. This all stemmed from me mocking your reliance on obviously biased polls and pointing towards the 2016 election for what I mean, polls that, once again, NO ONE was looking at the nation wide popular vote for on.

Quite the opposite, actually. When people look to the news for election updates, the vast majority do not pour over state by state polls.

We're talking about the so called "experts" who predicted the election, you know this but are once again falling back on your distraction bullshit. You think Nate Silver was looking at nation wide popular votes in his prediction of who would win? Here's a hint: no.

This wasn't JUST exposed as a new issue after the election, and is more complicated than "polls are nonsense, pollsters believe what they want to believe."

What? What does an article about polling becoming more expensive have to do with said polls being largely wrong?

See? Yet another distraction. Try this, Ashliana, just try staying on topic for once. Just once? Try it? For Jesus?

[Jhynnifer]

Every person's mental health is periodically evaluated as part of being a soldier. Correct? If so, let the psychiatrist make an appropriate determination as to the combat worthiness of the individual. If stability issues arise regarding any soldier -- white, black, straight, gay, trans, etc., let the military doctor evaluate them and have them appropriately judged as necessary. I don't pretend to know what the military does or doesn't do with its soldiers. If a soldier develops depression, do they kick the soldier out and say "good luck treating it"? Or do they treat the person and then allow them back into combat readiness? Honestly, I don't know, as I've only supported the military tangentially as a contractor.

A top-down decision that categorically rejects people based on their gender congruence certainly isn't backed up by the science.

According to an interview with retired Lt General Eric Schoomaker, there's a series of evaluations prior to deployment (with access to mental and physical health care providers while deployed) and then within 30 days of their being redeployed have another series of examinations. These are all subject to the honesty and candor of the individual and he even admits they can't always identify the problems that might be there. This sounds like unless the person is going to be deployed it is heavily upon them to step forward here.

I'm still not totally against it, end of the day I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'll always have my reservations and concerns but at the end of the day if the Military believes it's OK then so be it.

[Ashliana]

I don't want to talk about them because NO ONE was basing their predictions on nation wide popular vote polls. NO ONE. This is yet another one of your pathetic distractions bullshit because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, again, and have to fall back on something you (almost) know what you're talking about in some sort of distraction.

I already knew you were talking about the popular vote? Who gives a shit. This all stemmed from me mocking your reliance on obviously biased polls and pointing towards the 2016 election for what I mean, polls that, once again, NO ONE was looking at the nation wide popular vote for on.

No, Tgo, I'm afraid this argument -- like all your arguments -- falls to pieces the soon as it's examined.

Certain state polls significantly underestimated Trump's support -- or at least, the likelihood with which someone was to actually show up at the ballot. Those reasons are being studied in good faith by pollsters who know that their polls are only useful insofar as they accurately predict an outcome.

The key difference, however, between you and them is that you, without evidence, have leaped to the conclusion -- completely sans-evidence -- based on your intense desire for it to be true. In this case, being that pollsters simply let made up whatever they wanted, or fudged the numbers because they wanted Clinton to win.

The reason you don't want to talk about the national polls -- the most highly and repeatedly publicized polls -- is because it severely undercuts your evidence-free hypothesis for the disparity. Similarly, you don't seem to understand that, say, Nate Silver came to a 71.4% prediction -- not a 99% prediction -- the only one you were able to produce like that was HuffPost, a source I already agreed with you was engaged in wishful thinking.

We're talking about the so called "experts" who predicted the election, you know this but are once again falling back on your distraction bullshit. You think Nate Silver was looking at nation wide popular votes in his prediction of who would win? Here's a hint: no.

Eyeroll. You said "nobody cares about that poll," and I pointed out that you're incorrect. And no, we weren't talking about the poll aggregators at the time. The only one trying to distract here is you. Your inability to follow a single conversation isn't my problem.

What? What does an article about polling becoming more expensive have to do with said polls being largely wrong?

See? Yet another distraction. Try this, Ashliana, just try staying on topic for once. Just once? Try it? For Jesus?

You didn't read the article I linked to you, which is your prerogative, but again, makes you look stupid. Your refusal to read (or comically poor reading comprehension) only reflects on you.

But in the end, all of these pollsters are on uneasy ground this year. Consider this recent warning from Alan Dershowitz, a prominent constitutional lawyer who follows the political tides closely: "The reality is that polling is incapable of accurately predicting elections such as this one, where so many voters are angry, resentful, emotional, negative and frightened."

Badly reasoned as ever, Tgo.

[Tgo01]

The key difference, however, between you and them is that you, without evidence, have leaped to the conclusion -- completely sans-evidence --

Sans evidence? I went through over two dozen wrong polls spanning 5 states to prove my point. Meanwhile you, as per usual, just engage in a bunch of distraction bullshit. Pull your head out of your rectum and learn how to properly argue your point without sounding like a 2 year old.

The reason you don't want to talk about the national polls

I don't want to talk about the national polls because they, much like the popular vote in general, doesn't matter. How many times do I need to explain this to a retard like you? Just answer me a simple question, does the popular vote have a single fucking thing to do with how we elect our presidents? No? Then why would I give two shits about polls that look at the popular vote? No one cares, Ashliana. Your piece of shit corrupt gal Hillary lost, it's time to get over it and move on. Got it, simpleton?

Eyeroll. You said "nobody cares about that poll,"

Alright, I'll bite. Which "expert" relied on the nation wide popular vote for their prediction models?

Badly reasoned as ever, Tgo.

<insert 10 posts of HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHA here.>

So, seriously? That's your argument now? The polls were wrong but it's understandable this one time because voters were angry? Like people polled about this trans ban weren't angry or emotional or negative or frightened?

Unbelievable. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, Ashliana.

[Wrathbringer]

Every person's mental health is periodically evaluated as part of being a soldier. Correct? If so, let the psychiatrist make an appropriate determination as to the combat worthiness of the individual. If stability issues arise regarding any soldier -- white, black, straight, gay, trans, etc., let the military doctor evaluate them and have them appropriately judged as necessary. I don't pretend to know what the military does or doesn't do with its soldiers. If a soldier develops depression, do they kick the soldier out and say "good luck treating it"? Or do they treat the person and then allow them back into combat readiness? Honestly, I don't know, as I've only supported the military tangentially as a contractor.

A top-down decision that categorically rejects people based on their gender congruence certainly isn't backed up by the science.

You're a retard.

[Ashliana]

Sans evidence? I went through over two dozen wrong polls spanning 5 states to prove my point. Meanwhile you, as per usual, just engage in a bunch of distraction bullshit. Pull your head out of your rectum and learn how to properly argue your point without sounding like a 2 year old.

No, Tgo. You listed polls that were inaccurate. You don't have evidence about WHY they were inaccurate -- you have your evidence-free hypothesis, which you hold based on feelings. Either your poor reading comprehension or reasoning is at work here. Much to your obvious dismay, them being inaccurate is not prima facie evidence that the pollsters were "biased."

I don't want to talk about the national polls because they, much like the popular vote in general, doesn't matter. How many times do I need to explain this to a retard like you? Just answer me a simple question, does the popular vote have a single fucking thing to do with how we elect our presidents? No? Then why would I give two shits about polls that look at the popular vote? No one cares, Ashliana. Your piece of shit corrupt gal Hillary lost, it's time to get over it and move on. Got it, simpleton?

Nope. You don't want to talk about them, because it undercuts the totally flimsy pretext under which you've given yourself a license to unilaterally declare that any poll is useless based on what happened last year. Got it, simpleton?

Alright, I'll bite. Which "expert" relied on the nation wide popular vote for their prediction models?

That isn't what I said, or implied. You badly need to take a few seconds and actually read our exchanges.

<insert 10 posts of HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHA here.>

So, seriously? That's your argument now? The polls were wrong but it's understandable this one time because voters were angry? Like people polled about this trans ban weren't angry or emotional or negative or frightened?

Unbelievable. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, Ashliana.

You've demonstrated that you didn't read the article. I'll repeat: That's your prerogative, but it's definitely made you look stupid. The notion that this particular election (or more accurately, certain polls in a huge collection of polls -- some of which were accurate, some weren't -- has somehow demonstrated that "polling is useless" -- the conclusion you moronically reached -- is wishful thinking on your part, a politically expedient desire to give yourself carte blanche to ignore any polls which you wish weren't true. You're deluding yourself.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm profoundly retarded.

Yep. and lol @ your rep

[Tgo01]

No, Tgo. You listed polls that were inaccurate. You don't have evidence about WHY they were inaccurate -- you have your evidence-free hypothesis, which you hold based on feelings. Either your poor reading comprehension or reasoning is at work here. Much to your obvious dismay, them being inaccurate is not prima facie evidence that the pollsters were "biased."



Nope. You don't want to talk about them, because it undercuts the totally flimsy pretext under which you've given yourself a license to unilaterally declare that any poll is useless based on what happened last year. Got it, simpleton?

That isn't what I said, or implied. You badly need to take a few seconds and actually read our exchanges.



You've demonstrated that you didn't read the article. I'll repeat: That's your prerogative, but it's definitely made you look stupid. The notion that this particular election (or more accurately, certain polls in a huge collection of polls -- some of which were accurate, some weren't -- has somehow demonstrated that "polling is useless" -- the conclusion you moronically reached -- is wishful thinking on your part, a politically expedient desire to give yourself carte blanche to ignore any polls which you wish weren't true. You're deluding yourself.

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

[Ashliana]

Just answer the question, Ashliana. Be a man for just once in your life. If Holder decided to go after pot smokers in Colorado anyway, do you think Obama would have been within his right to fire Holder, or would that have been an obstruction of justice as well?

Just admit you were wrong. Why can't you do that?

Thanks for the concession. I would've done so too if I were trying to argue your stance.


You refusing to read the answer I gave you isn't the same thing as my not giving one, and you not understanding that your question in no way, shape or form has anything to do with Trump's obstruction of justice only reflects on you.

Try again.

[Wrathbringer]

I stink like a shitty ass.

well, yeah.