Plagiarism

[terminalg92]

I pretty much agree with what you stated. I think they would be better off firing the speech writer that either wrote or reviewed the speech. Have some accountability.

That said, with what you write in your post, much of it can be stated about Clinton as well. That is why the election is as close as it is right now(email, foundation issues, Benghazi, not being truthful to congress). Typical politicians-just deny everything.

That is why I am rolling with a third party. Unfortunately, none of the options are as good as Perot was.

100% agree with this. The choices from the two major parties are very weak IMO. To me classic Hillary was when she talked about shutting down coal mining, and then several weeks later when she was in West Virginia meeting with coal miners, she told them she was wrong about all that and changed her mind. You can't make some of this stuff up.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson as I'm a pretty tried and true libertarian, but frankly I don't even think HE is an overly strong candidate (although I do agree with most of his views). He's not a very smooth and clear speaker and I think he's too tied to the marijuana trade which nationally won't play very well. I agree with Mitt Romney that the libertarian ticket should be flipped--Bill Weld should be presidential candidate and Gary Johnson the VP; Weld is stronger IMO. And yes I know it wouldn't matter anyway...sadly we don't yet appear as a country to be advanced enough to contemplate more than two candidates/parties each election. I at least hope a 3rd-party candidate gets into the debates--because watching Hillary and Trump debate each other unchecked by a 3rd-party would make for a much less diverse set of viewpoints and just a lot of immature finger pointing and slams.

 

[ecouch]

It did happen, but Deval Patrick covered his behind. I'd get this more as a story if Melania were cribbing someone's life experiences and passing them off as her own a la Biden...or maybe...maybe...if she were plagiarizing something more than this generic feel good crap.

And, I don't believe the media would be making a big deal out of this if it were Michelle. They're in full "destroy Trump at all costs" mode.

Qaz isn't going to listen to Obama's and Biden's plagiarism.

Hell, it was the Clinton team that pointed out Obama's plagiarism years ago - not once, but twice.

And then team Obama hit back with a list of Hillary's lifted material.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/clinton-aide-accuses-obama-of-plagiarism-008570

There is nothing to see here. Mudslinging as usual. She performed at an average level given the circumstance.

 

[BoilerBiker]

I pretty much agree with what you stated. I think they would be better off firing the speech writer that either wrote or reviewed the speech. Have some accountability.

That said, with what you write in your post, much of it can be stated about Clinton as well. That is why the election is as close as it is right now(email, foundation issues, Benghazi, not being truthful to congress). Typical politicians-just deny everything.

That is why I am rolling with a third party. Unfortunately, none of the options are as good as Perot was.

can you imagine if he (or someone like him) ran today?!
i dream of a 3rd party winner someday also.
but can you imagine the riot-like atmosphere if the scenario played out that a 3rd party guy/gal won the popular vote, but not the electoral? or maybe worse if no one gets the 270 electoral, and the house picks a standard dem/repub themselves.

 

[Bruce1]

I acknowledge that there's obviously a language barrier there, and maybe that's all it was, but I wasn't really talking about her mastery of the language. It was the sullen tone, the mechanical appearance of shifting between teleprompters and the inability to squeeze out even a single word without reading it. Again, I acknowledge that it is not her native language and that she undoubtedly is less comfortable in that setting because of it, but the speech was anything but inspiring. I wouldn't have put her up there as a speaker.

Are you talking about HRC? Mechanical, etc.? LOL

 

[buygreekbonds]

I acknowledge that there's obviously a language barrier there, and maybe that's all it was, but I wasn't really talking about her mastery of the language. It was the sullen tone, the mechanical appearance of shifting between teleprompters and the inability to squeeze out even a single word without reading it. Again, I acknowledge that it is not her native language and that she undoubtedly is less comfortable in that setting because of it, but the speech was anything but inspiring. I wouldn't have put her up there as a speaker.

Next week at the DNC, we may see Elizabeth Warren having similar problems as she translates her comments from her native Cherokee.

 

[qazplm]

Qaz isn't going to listen to Obama's and Biden's plagiarism.

Hell, it was the Clinton team that pointed out Obama's plagiarism years ago - not once, but twice.

And then team Obama hit back with a list of Hillary's lifted material.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/clinton-aide-accuses-obama-of-plagiarism-008570

There is nothing to see here. Mudslinging as usual. She performed at an average level given the circumstance.

lol

Right when I typed in this very thread that Biden committed plagiarism, I wasn't listening.

Obama ADMITTED plagiarizing and apologized. See the difference? Oh no because you are doing the whole faux I'm a liberal thing and none of them are real liberals like me.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Copyright infringement is a red herring, at least to anything I've said in this conversation.

uh my point is the statement was very generic. It's not like she lifted a story about the struggles of black women in america. It's not a red herring, they overlap a lot. You guys don't know what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" and usually applies to academic honesty. None of those apply here. Good day. Find something serious to bitch about. There are a million problems in the country, a few words about following your dreams are not one of them.

 

[terminalg92]

uh my point is the statement was very generic. It's not like she lifted a story about the struggles of black women in america. It's not a red herring, they overlap a lot. You guys don't know what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" and usually applies to academic honesty. None of those apply here. Good day. Find something serious to bitch about. There are a million problems in the country, a few words about following your dreams are not one of them.

Introducing copyright infringement to the conversation was indeed a red herring, because (I assume) you know that this topic has nothing to do with copyright law or even just law in general. And nobody suggested that it did.

As far as me "not knowing what plagiarism is", here's the Webster's dictionary definition of it: the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person

So, yes, this was plagiarism by definition, unless you think it was pure luck that several exact phrases ended up word-for-word identical? I've yet to see anyone try to make that argument, because it's almost impossible that's what happened.

As far as finding something serious to bitch about, I get your point there but all I'll say is that both of our major party candidates have set an enormously low bar, and I think it's critical to not let that low bar sink in as the "new normal". When candidates or their campaigns do or say stupid $hit, IMO it needs to be called out. Republicans so blindly support their candidate and Democrats so blindly support theirs, and so it just becomes this unhelpful back-and-forth fight where both sides won't give an inch and everyone is essentially just a sheep following his or her political herd. Without some independent thought and non-partisan thinking, we're not going to go very far. As long as 90% of the electorate is fixated on the blue-red paradigm, I don't think that bodes very well for the country. Just my opinion.

 

[lbodel]

And it would be just as ridiculous. But, I guess this is to be expected during political silly season.

I think what gets me the most - the weird explanations given for it. Just say it was a mistake and it will go away a hell of a lot faster - particularly in a convention week when there is a lot of news. Nobody is out to vilify Melania - blaming the Clinton campaign who didn't even comment on it at the time was absurd.

So far, the Republican convention has consisted of attacking Hillary Clinton and two family members who talked about their dad. The first night you would have thought we lived in a 3rd world country it was so dark and gloomy. You have featured speakers later on saying that Obama is a secret Muslim still? Ok. Last night, the theme of putting America to work again - um, didn't really hear much on that other than bits of Donald Jr's speech (he did a decent job for what it's worth - but again, other family members on the attack are not really going to sway a lot). This convention needs some sort of positivity and vision for Trump other than fear mongering and attacking. I'm not sure how much of this really reaches out beyond the Republican base - like others have said, Trump has struggled to make that pivot between primary and general election.

The ironic part of course is that Trump vilifies the Obama's - accusing him of being a Muslim, sympathizing with terrorists, etc - then his wife is inspirational to his wife? Uh, ok.

It's all a big show.

 

[qazplm]

I think what gets me the most - the weird explanations given for it. Just say it was a mistake and it will go away a hell of a lot faster - particularly in a convention week when there is a lot of news. Nobody is out to vilify Melania - blaming the Clinton campaign who didn't even comment on it at the time was absurd.

So far, the Republican convention has consisted of attacking Hillary Clinton and two family members who talked about their dad. The first night you would have thought we lived in a 3rd world country it was so dark and gloomy. You have featured speakers later on saying that Obama is a secret Muslim still? Ok. Last night, the theme of putting America to work again - um, didn't really hear much on that other than bits of Donald Jr's speech (he did a decent job for what it's worth - but again, other family members on the attack are not really going to sway a lot). This convention needs some sort of positivity and vision for Trump other than fear mongering and attacking. I'm not sure how much of this really reaches out beyond the Republican base - like others have said, Trump has struggled to make that pivot between primary and general election.

The ironic part of course is that Trump vilifies the Obama's - accusing him of being a Muslim, sympathizing with terrorists, etc - then his wife is inspirational to his wife? Uh, ok.

It's all a big show.

and now we have this:

http://gawker.com/speechwriter-confirms-melania-knew-she-was-plagiarizing-1783980633

And I agree. It's stunning to me that they have not mixed in more policy and pro-Trump into this convention so far. I get the anti-Hillary stuff. You're supposed to do a heavy volume of that. But usually you mix in a near equal mixture of pro your candidate stuff too. Look at how bad she is, but look at how great he will be. Here's what she would do, but then here is what he would do.

Maybe that's in the plan, we will see tonight, but as you say nothing of the last two days was anything other than red meat for the base and not designed to expand his appeal in the slightest.

I STILL think he gets a convention bounce, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if he didn't.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Introducing copyright infringement to the conversation was indeed a red herring, because (I assume) you know that this topic has nothing to do with copyright law or even just law in general. And nobody suggested that it did.

As far as me "not knowing what plagiarism is", here's the Webster's dictionary definition of it: the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person

So, yes, this was plagiarism by definition, unless you think it was pure luck that several exact phrases ended up word-for-word identical? I've yet to see anyone try to make that argument, because it's almost impossible that's what happened.

As far as finding something serious to bitch about, I get your point there but all I'll say is that both of our major party candidates have set an enormously low bar, and I think it's critical to not let that low bar sink in as the "new normal". When candidates or their campaigns do or say stupid $hit, IMO it needs to be called out. Republicans so blindly support their candidate and Democrats so blindly support theirs, and so it just becomes this unhelpful back-and-forth fight where both sides won't give an inch and everyone is essentially just a sheep following his or her political herd. Without some independent thought and non-partisan thinking, we're not going to go very far. As long as 90% of the electorate is fixated on the blue-red paradigm, I don't think that bodes very well for the country. Just my opinion.

plagiarism is nothing unless you infringe upon someone's intellectual property or you're a university student. Maybe she felt like those ideas were her own? I read things all the time that I agree with, or maybe I even had the idea first. It doesn't make it plagiarism. She didn't try to put the speech up for sale as her own work. Not every fart a person has is original. These sorts of non issues made into issues are the reason politics are so partisan. It's worse than the national inquirer. She's not even a candidate!

 

[gr8indoorsman]

And I agree. It's stunning to me that they have not mixed in more policy and pro-Trump into this convention so far. I get the anti-Hillary stuff. You're supposed to do a heavy volume of that. But usually you mix in a near equal mixture of pro your candidate stuff too. Look at how bad she is, but look at how great he will be. Here's what she would do, but then here is what he would do.

We're seeing very little of this across the political landscape today. I tire of people trying to convince me not to vote for one candidate or the other, and long for someone to convince me why I should vote for someone. And the correct answer there is not #NeverTrump or #NotHer, etc. About the only people who seem to be focusing on their individual candidate are the Libertarians.

 

[qazplm]

We're seeing very little of this across the political landscape today. I tire of people trying to convince me not to vote for one candidate or the other, and long for someone to convince me why I should vote for someone. And the correct answer there is not #NeverTrump or #NotHer, etc. About the only people who seem to be focusing on their individual candidate are the Libertarians.

I don't think that's going to be true next week. It MIGHT have been true if Bernie and Hillary hadn't made up, but now that their more or less unity, I think you will see a 50/50 mix of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton next week. Which is fine. I suppose even the RNC will achieve that mix if they spend the next two days mostly on Trump, but that doesn't seem to be the way they are going.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't think that's going to be true next week. It MIGHT have been true if Bernie and Hillary hadn't made up, but now that their more or less unity, I think you will see a 50/50 mix of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton next week. Which is fine. I suppose even the RNC will achieve that mix if they spend the next two days mostly on Trump, but that doesn't seem to be the way they are going.

I think when you know your candidate is heavily controversial and flawed, you focus on the fact that the other candidate is controversial and flawed. I think the perception is that Trump is flawed and controversial, so the "heat on you is heat off me" is the strategy.

Meanwhile, the Democrats recognize that Hillary is flawed, but I don't think they view her as as much of a flawed wild card as Trump, so they focus a little bit more on their platform. In addition, the Democrats have done this before whereas the Trump campaign has not.

Trump has largely gotten to where he is through rhetoric and systematic dismantling of other candidates. I don't think that's going to win him the GE, because I think they've really got to convince people (like me) why they SHOULD vote Trump not why they shouldn't vote for someone else.

 

[qazplm]

I think when you know your candidate is heavily controversial and flawed, you focus on the fact that the other candidate is controversial and flawed. I think the perception is that Trump is flawed and controversial, so the "heat on you is heat off me" is the strategy.

Meanwhile, the Democrats recognize that Hillary is flawed, but I don't think they view her as as much of a flawed wild card as Trump, so they focus a little bit more on their platform. In addition, the Democrats have done this before whereas the Trump campaign has not.

Trump has largely gotten to where he is through rhetoric and systematic dismantling of other candidates. I don't think that's going to win him the GE, because I think they've really got to convince people (like me) why they SHOULD vote Trump not why they shouldn't vote for someone else.

He's sitting on a base of 38-44% depending on the polls you look at (I'm ignoring outliers like Rasmussen). She's sitting on a base of I'd say 42-48% (again ignoring outliers). That matches up with a roughly 4 pt avg lead (again when you ignore massive outliers like Rasmussen). The key for him is he has to expand his range by at least that much as you say he seems to think he can drag Hillary down to him but I agree with you that isn't going to work.

Hillary has to keep herself from falling and keep him from rising. I think the latter involves negative campaigning but the former involves positive campaigning, and I think you are seeing a mix of the ads that have come out from her so far, i.e. it's not all Trump Scary. And I think you will see that at the convention.

I think they also see the possibility of a wave election, and you can't get that on pure negative.

 

[terminalg92]

plagiarism is nothing unless you infringe upon someone's intellectual property or you're a university student. Maybe she felt like those ideas were her own? I read things all the time that I agree with, or maybe I even had the idea first. It doesn't make it plagiarism. She didn't try to put the speech up for sale as her own work. Not every fart a person has is original. These sorts of non issues made into issues are the reason politics are so partisan. It's worse than the national inquirer. She's not even a candidate!

A speechwriter making a mistake is mostly a non-issue. A campaign's subsequent denial and deflection of said mistake is worth discussion. Otherwise every campaign should just deny and deflect every mistake as a low-risk base strategy, because the electorate would be either too ignorant or too apathetic to even call them on it. Which sadly is probably mostly true. But some of us don't fall for such banal diversion tactics.

The part that I take unfortunate humor in is how similar the uproar would have been from the other side had the parties in the situation been reversed. I trust that's not up for debate. And that tells me all that I need to know--a lot of our electorate is more interested in their party winning than in the actual candidate in question. I think Trump was spot on when he said he could shoot someone and not lose voters...figuratively and exaggeratively of course...at this point when you're the nominee of either major party, you're going to get 40% or whatever just for having a pulse. Historic unfavorables alone suggest that we're squarely in a lesser-of-two-evils race, which is really sad when we consider the grand prize at the end, the presidency of the U.S.

 

[qazplm]

I think when you know your candidate is heavily controversial and flawed, you focus on the fact that the other candidate is controversial and flawed. I think the perception is that Trump is flawed and controversial, so the "heat on you is heat off me" is the strategy.

Meanwhile, the Democrats recognize that Hillary is flawed, but I don't think they view her as as much of a flawed wild card as Trump, so they focus a little bit more on their platform. In addition, the Democrats have done this before whereas the Trump campaign has not.

Trump has largely gotten to where he is through rhetoric and systematic dismantling of other candidates. I don't think that's going to win him the GE, because I think they've really got to convince people (like me) why they SHOULD vote Trump not why they shouldn't vote for someone else.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-schedule-of-events-and-speakers-bernie-sanders-225619

I think this confirms my thoughts and is a real difference from what we've seen at the RNC this week.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Some groups will go to any length in an attempt to detract from their opponent. In this case talking about family values, work ethic, etc is so generic that it doesn't come close to any definition that I have found. There are plenty of opportunities to attack Trump that are real. This is a joke. I can't believe it received any coverage from the press. On the other hand ......I guess I can

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

I say, if you're going to steal a speech, steal one from an actual politician, like say, Elizabeth Warren or DeVol Patrick.

 

[lbodel]

I think when you know your candidate is heavily controversial and flawed, you focus on the fact that the other candidate is controversial and flawed. I think the perception is that Trump is flawed and controversial, so the "heat on you is heat off me" is the strategy.

Meanwhile, the Democrats recognize that Hillary is flawed, but I don't think they view her as as much of a flawed wild card as Trump, so they focus a little bit more on their platform. In addition, the Democrats have done this before whereas the Trump campaign has not.

Trump has largely gotten to where he is through rhetoric and systematic dismantling of other candidates. I don't think that's going to win him the GE, because I think they've really got to convince people (like me) why they SHOULD vote Trump not why they shouldn't vote for someone else.

I agree with this. You haven't seen much "substance" from Trump really at all. He doesn't talk about anything he'll do other than vague, overarching thoughts that are a hell of a lot easier said than done. I think it'll be interesting how the debates are handled. I already feel sorry for the moderators. These are usually very substantive debates (unlike primary debates) and if Trump doesn't answer questions and is consistently asked follow up questions, Trump will just scream bias. I think there will be a lot of pressure prior to the debates from the Trump camp already pushing back on what they know will be coming.

That being said, I'm not really sure what to expect from the rest of the convention. I think Donald Trump Jr. was pretty decent for making a case for Trump. However, I don't know if I'd put all of my children in prime time speaking splots. Eventually you want to hear from other people besides family members. I know it is important for Trump, but the line up is not the most scintillating (and I think the only people who know his kids are people who watched the Apprentice on TV). Tonight's primetime is Eric Trump, Newt Gingrich and Mike Pence. Again - great for the base but not sure how much broad appeal that has.

 

[qazplm]

Having said that, Hillary's campaign isn't above a little trolling...this time of Chris Christie.

 

[BoilerJS]

View embedded media

Having said that, Hillary's campaign isn't above a little trolling...this time of Chris Christie.

I wonder if the liberals will have another vote to add God back in the platform. Maybe the Fluck lady will again talk about free birth control and abortions. Let's not forget that transgenders, in the military, can now get sex changes paid for by the tax payers.
And we are worried about words from a speech 8 years ago, that expressed some values, used by the possible first lady.

 

[Purdue97]

I don't think that's going to be true next week. It MIGHT have been true if Bernie and Hillary hadn't made up, but now that their more or less unity, I think you will see a 50/50 mix of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton next week. Which is fine. I suppose even the RNC will achieve that mix if they spend the next two days mostly on Trump, but that doesn't seem to be the way they are going.

I do not disagree that there seems to be a lot of red meat thrown around so far. That said, I would think the person that should deliver the platform/policy part of the message might be Pence a little bit but should be mainly Trump. We will see.

 

[qazplm]

I wonder if the liberals will have another vote to add God back in the platform. Maybe the Fluck lady will again talk about free birth control and abortions. Let's not forget that transgenders, in the military, can now get sex changes paid for by the tax payers.
And we are worried about words from a speech 8 years ago, that expressed some values, used by the possible first lady.

Why are the only values you seem concerned about centered around sex?

 

[BoilerJS]

Why are the only values you seem concerned about centered around sex?

How is having to vote, to bring God into your platform, have anything to do with sex. And I'm sorry but having some bimbo talk about wanting free birth control, so she can avoid a free abortion , isn't my thing. And let's help the vets who need it. IMO having a castration and taking hormones to grow boobs shouldn't be a priority. And I don't want to pay for it.

 

[terminalg92]

Having a castration and taking hormones to grow boobs shouldn't be a priority.

Can we all agree on this at least?

 

[qazplm]

How is having to vote, to bring God into your platform, have anything to do with sex. And I'm sorry but having some bimbo talk about wanting free birth control, so she can avoid a free abortion , isn't my thing. And let's help the vets who need it. IMO having a castration and taking hormones to grow boobs shouldn't be a priority. And I don't want to pay for it.

Even if God were a real thing, I feel fairly confident that someone as judgmental as you are wouldn't be one of his special flowers.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Gotta admit, I read the DODi on transgender service and was thinking, "it is high time for me to leave this canoe club." The stuff we are worried about has changed drastically in 17 years, not all for the better IMO.

 

[qazplm]

Gotta admit, I read the DODi on transgender service and was thinking, "it is high time for me to leave this canoe club." The stuff we are worried about has changed drastically in 17 years, not all for the better IMO.

Why? For a tiny handful of people? Can they do their job? That's all I care about.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Why? For a tiny handful of people? Can they do their job? That's all I care about.

because they won't be doing their job from a hospital bed.

 

[lbodel]

We're seeing very little of this across the political landscape today. I tire of people trying to convince me not to vote for one candidate or the other, and long for someone to convince me why I should vote for someone. And the correct answer there is not #NeverTrump or #NotHer, etc. About the only people who seem to be focusing on their individual candidate are the Libertarians.

I think there's a lot of white noise out there you have to separate from. I think Trump has certainly left a ball sitting in midair ready to smash on a few different occasions, which has made a lot of the focus about him/criticizing him. And, quite frankly, we've been in-between primary and general election focus which is typically a bit of silly season.

However, I think when you get down to it, you'll see more substance from one side than the other. To be clear, #NeverTrump is primarily an inter-Republican thing, not a Democrat thing (while I'm sure it's been used some, the whole campaign of that is by fellow Republicans).

These two conventions are going to be very different. And while some of the "talking" that's being done about the RNC may be more entertaining (and while there's plenty of planned parts that were talk-worthy, the ones we've talked about mostly have not been planned), the DNC definitely has some high-powered speakers. And of course some of the DNC speakers will rip on Trump, but I think a lot of the high-profile speeches you see will be more along the lines of a Mike Pence or Don Jr. speech (Mike Pence did a good job promoting himself - but didn't really do much to link it to Trump - it's like they are 2 different universes).

There's going to be more promotion of ideas vs. ripping apart people.

 

[qazplm]

I think there's a lot of white noise out there you have to separate from. I think Trump has certainly left a ball sitting in midair ready to smash on a few different occasions, which has made a lot of the focus about him/criticizing him. And, quite frankly, we've been in-between primary and general election focus which is typically a bit of silly season.

However, I think when you get down to it, you'll see more substance from one side than the other. To be clear, #NeverTrump is primarily an inter-Republican thing, not a Democrat thing (while I'm sure it's been used some, the whole campaign of that is by fellow Republicans).

These two conventions are going to be very different. And while some of the "talking" that's being done about the RNC may be more entertaining (and while there's plenty of planned parts that were talk-worthy, the ones we've talked about mostly have not been planned), the DNC definitely has some high-powered speakers. And of course some of the DNC speakers will rip on Trump, but I think a lot of the high-profile speeches you see will be more along the lines of a Mike Pence or Don Jr. speech (Mike Pence did a good job promoting himself - but didn't really do much to link it to Trump - it's like they are 2 different universes).

There's going to be more promotion of ideas vs. ripping apart people.

Exactly, and the thing is, the republicans could have easily made their convention about promoting ideas if they wanted to...I mean, that's the norm for both sides.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Why? For a tiny handful of people? Can they do their job? That's all I care about.

The idea of the government (taxpayers) paying for - both directly in terms of medical bills and indirectly in terms of time lost - sex change operations is ridiculous to me. There is little medical evidence that this "condition" is truly one that requires such treatment. Again, this is one of those "choice" things to me until proven otherwise. I don't believe Tricare pays a dime towards elective plastic surgery. Why not?

I'm perfectly fine with transgender folks serving, same as homosexuals. I do not think we should be using government money to support gender identity change surgeries for folks, particularly in an era where we're talking all the time about reduction of personnel costs associated with the military.

 

[BoilerJS]

The idea of the government (taxpayers) paying for - both directly in terms of medical bills and indirectly in terms of time lost - sex change operations is ridiculous to me. There is little medical evidence that this "condition" is truly one that requires such treatment. Again, this is one of those "choice" things to me until proven otherwise. I don't believe Tricare pays a dime towards elective plastic surgery. Why not?

I'm perfectly fine with transgender folks serving, same as homosexuals. I do not think we should be using government money to support gender identity change surgeries for folks, particularly in an era where we're talking all the time about reduction of personnel costs associated with the military.

My feelings exactly. If Bruce wants to be Brucie and dress up like it's Halloween every day, that's their business. If the neighborhood bimbo wants to make love to everything in the neighborhood from the 18 year old boy next door to the 12 year old dog in the fence, that it's perogative. But why should I pay for the sex change operation and the birth control. Let alone the abortions.
And only on rare occassion, would some doctor sticking sharp objects in your uterus be considered necessary womens health. I can understand toothe paste, a tooth brush, tampons and deodorant, but not birth control or free abortions.
One can suggest it is a constitutational right to have an abortion. I say it's my constitutional right to have fire arms. So if I feel unssafe in my community, from a psycological stand point, should the government supply me with free fire arms and bulletts?
How about a federally funded organization called planned survivalhood where they give me a free hand gun and all the ammo I need to employ my constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

My feelings exactly. If Bruce wants to be Brucie and dress up like it's Halloween every day, that's their business. If the neighborhood bimbo wants to make love to everything in the neighborhood from the 18 year old boy next door to the 12 year old dog in the fence, that it's perogative. But why should I pay for the sex change operation and the birth control. Let alone the abortions.
And only on rare occassion, would some doctor sticking sharp objects in your uterus be considered necessary womens health. I can understand toothe paste, a tooth brush, tampons and deodorant, but not birth control or free abortions.
One can suggest it is a constitutational right to have an abortion. I say it's my constitutional right to have fire arms. So if I feel unssafe in my community, from a psycological stand point, should the government supply me with free fire arms and bulletts?
How about a federally funded organization called planned survivalhood where they give me a free hand gun and all the ammo I need to employ my constitutional right to bear arms.

sign me up for free ammo. .45 is costing me $0.40 a round! Not to mention 7.62 ooof!

 

[qazplm]

The idea of the government (taxpayers) paying for - both directly in terms of medical bills and indirectly in terms of time lost - sex change operations is ridiculous to me. There is little medical evidence that this "condition" is truly one that requires such treatment. Again, this is one of those "choice" things to me until proven otherwise. I don't believe Tricare pays a dime towards elective plastic surgery. Why not?

I'm perfectly fine with transgender folks serving, same as homosexuals. I do not think we should be using government money to support gender identity change surgeries for folks, particularly in an era where we're talking all the time about reduction of personnel costs associated with the military.

We pay for some breast implants already why? Because the docs we have that do plastic surgery need to do some to maintain their licenses.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

We pay for some breast implants already why? Because the docs we have that do plastic surgery need to do some to maintain their licenses.

medically necessary ones chief. I know that's somewhat murky but let's not pretend you can just walk in and get one. You are gonna have troubles getting a sex change deemed medically necessary.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

We pay for some breast implants already why? Because the docs we have that do plastic surgery need to do some to maintain their licenses.

For one thing, I don't think that's a valid reason. For another, a woman contracts breast cancer and has a mastectomy or a double, for a viable medical need, I would support plastic surgery to allow that person a more normal life. I also support federally funded plastic surgery for soldiers wounded in combat, etc. Where I draw the line is PFC Sam decides he wants to be PFC Sally, and now not only do taxpayers have to foot the bill, the unit commanders are obligated to grant the paid medical leave (which counts towards total service obligation time!) necessary to make it happen.

I hate slippery slope arguments, I really do, but I wonder how long it is until someone joins the military, finishes boot camp and asks when they can start their gender transition. It's probably already happened. I have no issue with folks using the military as a way to get the GI bill to fund their education. I see that benefit both to the service and to society. I don't see the same benefits with opting to use an enlistment as a way to get a "free" sex change.

 

[qazplm]

For one thing, I don't think that's a valid reason. For another, a woman contracts breast cancer and has a mastectomy or a double, for a viable medical need, I would support plastic surgery to allow that person a more normal life. I also support federally funded plastic surgery for soldiers wounded in combat, etc. Where I draw the line is PFC Sam decides he wants to be PFC Sally, and now not only do taxpayers have to foot the bill, the unit commanders are obligated to grant the paid medical leave (which counts towards total service obligation time!) necessary to make it happen.

I hate slippery slope arguments, I really do, but I wonder how long it is until someone joins the military, finishes boot camp and asks when they can start their gender transition. It's probably already happened. I have no issue with folks using the military as a way to get the GI bill to fund their education. I see that benefit both to the service and to society. I don't see the same benefits with opting to use an enlistment as a way to get a "free" sex change.

No, regular old breast implants. The reason is to maintain licenses. Why wouldn't that be a valid reason? Those licenses are necessary and particularly during wartime reconstructive surgeons are necessary. I just think on the list of things out there, this is low priority.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

No, regular old breast implants. The reason is to maintain licenses. Why wouldn't that be a valid reason? Those licenses are necessary and particularly during wartime reconstructive surgeons are necessary. I just think on the list of things out there, this is low priority.

I see what you mean, yeah, that does make sense. I agree the new DODi is low-priority. As XO then CO of a Crew of 50-115 Sailors, it's likely it won't ever affect me directly, but it did give me pause about some of the things we're tackling these days.