What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DontSayBanana]

What did Trump mean by "in consultation with my generals?" Simple. It was a lie, so when it backfired, it wouldn't be blamed on him. Unfortunately, the story was too flimsy, and it backfired on Trump anyway.

Re: governmental systemic racism - I'm seeing a skewed argument of equality of outcomes vs. equality of opportunities in this thread. I come down on the side of "systemically racist," because I believe that systemic intervention is preventing equality of outcomes when it comes to race. The defenders seem to be saying that because the government isn't making explicitly racist overtures, it's not implicitly racist. I'd say that the government's failure to address non-policy forces preventing equality of opportunity is systemically racist, especially when it is overlooked willfully.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/27/donald-trump-transgender-ban-troops-pentagon-us-military

US defense chiefs have pushed back against Donald Trump's attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military, saying the policy would not be overturned until they received formal direction to do so.

In a rebuke to Trump's attempt to run the government and military via Twitter, Gen Joseph Dunford, America's top military officer, said on Thursday that the armed forces would continue to permit transgender people to serve openly until the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, has received Trump's "direction" to change the policy and figured out how to implement it.

In a memo to all military service chiefs, commanders and enlisted military leaders, Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said "there will be no modifications" to current policy for now, amid questions about Trump's announcement on Twitter that the US government will not "accept or allow" transgender people to serve in any capacity in the military.

"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement," Dunford began, adding that nothing would change until the president's direction has been received by Mattis and Mattis has issued "implementation guidance".

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," Dunford wrote. "As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."

The Dunford statement suggests that Mattis was given no presidential direction on changing the transgender policy. Mattis has been on vacation this week and has been publicly silent amid questions about Trump's announced ban. His spokesmen declined to comment on Thursday. On Wednesday, they said the Pentagon would work with the White House and provide revised guidance to the military "in the near future".

Dunford himself was not aware that Trump was going to announce the ban, a US official said. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter and so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trump's announcement caught the Pentagon flat-footed and unable to explain what it called Trump's "guidance".

"Please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," the commander in chief tweeted.

Trump wrote that he had consulted with "my generals and military experts", but he did not mention Mattis, the retired Marine general who recently told the service chiefs to spend another six months weighing the costs and benefits of allowing transgender individuals to enlist. At the time, Mattis said this "does not presuppose the outcome of the review", but Trump's tweets appeared to have done just that.

The Pentagon has not released data on the number of transgender people currently serving. A Rand Corporation study has estimated the number at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of 1.3 million active-duty troops.

Criticism for Trump's action was immediate and strong from both political parties.

John McCain, the Arizona Republican and Vietnam war hero, said Trump was simply wrong.

"Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving," he said. "There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military – regardless of their gender identity."

Not everyone at the Capitol agreed.

Duncan Hunter, a member of the House armed services committee, said: "It's about time that a decision is made to restore the warrior culture and allow the US military to get back to business."

Transgender people already in uniform were concerned about what comes next.

"Everybody is hurt, everybody is scared," said Rudy Akbarian, 26, who is in the military but did not want to identify his branch.

Trump's sudden declaration appears to halt a decades-long trend toward more inclusive policies on military service, including the repeal in 2010 of a ban on gays serving openly. Bill Clinton began the push to allow gay people to serve in 1993. In December 2015, Barack Obama's Pentagon chief, Ash Carter, announced that all military positions would be open to women. Liberalizing policy on transgender troops was the next step.

Just last week, when asked about the transgender issue at a Senate hearing, Gen Paul Selva, vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said: "I am an advocate of every qualified person who can meet the physical standards to serve in our uniformed services to be able to do so."

Transgender service members have been able to serve openly since 2016, when Carter ended the ban. Since 1 October, transgender troops could receive medical care and start changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

Carter also gave the services until 1 July to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to join the military if they meet normal standards and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

On 30 June, Mattis extended the 1 July deadline to 1 January 2018, saying the services should study the impact on the "readiness and lethality of our forces".

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said Trump had made "a military decision". She said it was his judgment that allowing transgender service "erodes military readiness and unit cohesion".

Sanders said the "president's national security team was part of this consultation" and that Trump "informed" Mattis of his decision immediately after he made it on Tuesday.

[Malthus]

What did Trump mean by "in consultation with my generals?" Simple. It was a lie, so when it backfired, it wouldn't be blamed on him. Unfortunately, the story was too flimsy, and it backfired on Trump anyway.

Re: governmental systemic racism - I'm seeing a skewed argument of equality of outcomes vs. equality of opportunities in this thread. I come down on the side of "systemically racist," because I believe that systemic intervention is preventing equality of outcomes when it comes to race. The defenders seem to be saying that because the government isn't making explicitly racist overtures, it's not implicitly racist. I'd say that the government's failure to address non-policy forces preventing equality of opportunity is systemically racist, especially when it is overlooked willfully.

I think, as an argument, this is both untrue and unhelpful.

Untrue, because it treats unlike people alike: those who believe in "color blind" institutions are lumped in with express racists, when they aren't of necessity at all the same - and may be the exact opposite.

Unhelpful, because it is unpersuasive. As an argument, it relies on attributing an untrue label (racism) to persuade people of the merits of one's position; or alternatively, it dilutes the meaning of the term "racism" to worthlessness. If the status quo is by definition "racist" because of difference in observed outcome, then rather than being horrified, a potential response may be 'well then racism isn't actually such a bad thing'. 

I know that allegations of "systemic" racism are a common trope on the political left, and I don't think it does them any favors. Compared with what the political right is doing these days, of course, this is harmless - at most a minor annoyance.

[Jacob]

If the status quo is by definition "racist" because of difference in observed outcome, then rather than being horrified, a potential response may be 'well then racism isn't actually such a bad thing'. 

The alternative is to accept that the status quo is great.

Given your contention that the status quo is not "racist", at what point would you say the US stopped being "racist"?

[frunk]

I don't like applying descriptive terms to governments or other large organizations that are better used for individuals.  They are too big and do too many different, contradictory things to call all of it racist.  Individuals serving in it, yes, particularly policies or actions, sure.  Tarring the whole thing with specific intent just gets into a quagmire.

[garbon]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

[garbon]

I don't like applying descriptive terms to governments or other large organizations that are better used for individuals.  They are too big and do too many different, contradictory things to call all of it racist.  Individuals serving in it, yes, particularly policies or actions, sure.  Tarring the whole thing with specific intent just gets into a quagmire.

Yeah, the quagmire of having to deal with the fact that one's status quo deals out unjust outcomes to people of different races.

[garbon]

Good on the defense chiefs.

[frunk]

Yeah, the quagmire of having to deal with the fact that one's status quo deals out unjust outcomes to people of different races.

Not all of what they government does is racist, and in fact some of what it does combats inequality.  If we call the whole government racist does that mean we should fight everything it does?  It's lazy and fails to target specific problems that cause unjust outcomes.

[garbon]

This answer to that is no. Why would one company everything a racist structure does? I don't think anyone here is advocating anarchy or overthrow.

[garbon]

Is a person not racist if they have a few black friends?

[dps]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

I completely disagree.  Not being colorblind is explicitly racist.

[Malthus]

If the status quo is by definition "racist" because of difference in observed outcome, then rather than being horrified, a potential response may be 'well then racism isn't actually such a bad thing'. 

The alternative is to accept that the status quo is great.

False dichotomy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Rarely have I seen a purer example.

It is absolutely possible to (a) accept that the status quo is not great; and (b) not accept that it is in and of itself "racist".

Given your contention that the status quo is not "racist", at what point would you say the US stopped being "racist"?

It depends on what you mean by "the US".

I don't think that racism ever disappeared from US society, if that is what you are asking. It remains to this day in lots of places; I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Assuming you mean "the laws of the US", those laws themselves stopped being "racist" when they ceased to enshrine racism officially. This was a gradual process, triggered by a series of laws enacted in the mid-1960s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

There is a legitimate argument to be made that certain laws are designed to have a disproportionate impact on Black communities (see: drug laws) and that these are "racist".

But on the whole, by any meaningful measure, while not perfect the laws of today are clearly "non racist" in that they do not expressly enshrine racism, while the laws pre-1960s are clearly "racist" because they did.

But give Trump time; I'm sure he can undo the whole "lets make the laws colourblind" thing soon enough. 

[Jacob]

Not all of what they government does is racist, and in fact some of what it does combats inequality.  If we call the whole government racist does that mean we should fight everything it does?  It's lazy and fails to target specific problems that cause unjust outcomes.

I don't think your conclusions follow from the premise.

Suppose "the system" - a combination of government and private actors - create outcomes that are grossly racist in some areas. Suppose also, as you say, that there are elements of the system that mitigates or avoids grossly racist outcomes in other areas.

To me it seems a more reasonable conclusion is not to "fight the whole government" or "destroy the entire system" but to support and nourish the parts of the system that do not produce or even counters racist outcomes, while working to dismantle and replace the parts of the system that propagates grossly racist outcomes.

As part of that effort, it seems pretty legitimate to identify and challenge the individuals who work to support and propagate the elements of the system that propagates grossly racist outcomes. Whether they do so out of personal animus against people of other races, or whether they do it out of some other principle or self interest doesn't really signify - what matters is that they're supporting and growing the parts of the system that produces grossly racist outcomes.

[garbon]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

I completely disagree.  Not being colorblind is explicitly racist.

No because supposed colorblindness is exactly what leads to the reinforcement of racism. Can't fix a problem you can't see.