TRUMP reminds me of All Might from Hero Academia. Any other Trump fans?

Unless you know firsthand I don't think you're really qualified to comment about what a trans person goes through, or their state of mind. If they take hormones then, or course, until the course is complete then they will likely not be on active duty, however once their bodies have adapted they'll be as normal as anyone else. They will even have to complete psychological checks, just like anyone who's suffered depression in the past, and if at that time they are deemed unstable they would be dismissed from service. You come across as quite prejudice to suggest they're a risk.

Oh, is that it? So you're saying we can't understand each other. That's just how it's going to have to be then. The trans community can form their own military in that case. The only prejudice I have here is against the completely dysfunctional fucking attitude of communication as a means of control, like what you intend to do here. These words we use are meant to understand each other, not to fucking tell each other what to do. We discuss and negotiate with each other so we can come to a deeper understanding. We don't just say "your words aren't legitimate because you aren't qualified".

I haven't told you to do anything? I also didn't say we can't understand each other. Don't throw your toys out of the pram - are you telling me that you know about trans people? Have you taken hormones or know anyone who's actively looking into it? Do tell me how you know trans people on hormones are unstable. Also all I did in the second part of my comment was point out how the military would work to erase that particular issue. After the hormone treatment was complete (i.e. they have stabalised into the opposite gender) the officer would see psychiatrists who would either say they're fit to return to duty or not. Invariably there would be no issue and they would return to work, as evidenced by there being active trans officers.

Why should we even interact if we can't hope to understand each other? Just make a separate military for every gender. For that matter why talk to each other at all when all that matters is the continued survival of the human race, all that matters is procreation. Do you even want to discuss ideas? Or are you going to adhere to the notion that an idea only matters if it's from the perspective of the one experiencing it? Why are you even having this conversation? Why do you care? Why not just shut yourself in a little ball and only talk about yourself and how your day went?

For someone who wants a discussion you're certainly not listening to the other side. You haven't explained to me how you KNOW transgender people aren't mentally stable enough for military service. Tell me. I'm listening. The downfall of your argument is the fact that transgender people do serve, and have proved themselves to be mentally stable, since they would have had to be certified by a psychiatrist in the first place. They may even need to be regularly seen to make sure they're still ok - I don't know about that, but them getting into service is good enough for me. I found a few pages you might find of interest: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-truth-about-exercise-addiction/201612/why-transgender-people-experience-more-mental-health https://www.livescience.com/51652-transgender-youth-dont-have-hormonal-imbalance.html https://www.livinghealthy.com/articles/understanding-how-hormones-affect-transgender-people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_vJtuziyE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_CYBcO_58Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoIM56XlhxM

@Shinu "So far you haven't given me a proper argument as to why we should have committed to TPP. Just "It would have been a great trade deal". What was so good about it? What made it better than doing regular trade? What were the risks and what specifically were the benefits?" I did though. It was one of the things you were proud of Trump for but I posted why abandoning it was a bad idea.(See Page 11, 4th post)

@Manga_bird I'll talk with you if you should ever stop with the "your ideas are unqualified because of your background" bullshit. That being your immediate fallback ploy really ticked me off. @ulfric I didn't see your posts and I'll look through them when I have the time.

@ulfric I definitely wasn't referring to you when I said "So far you haven't given me a proper argument as to why we should have committed to TPP". I was referring specifically to cinnaminion. I was criticizing her for arguing with her feelings, rather than with with actual well thought out arguments, facts, and consideration. I believe your argument is well thought out. I didn't read it initially since I have been regularly talking about these things and have been "politically fatigued" if that's a thing, not because I was denying you the platform. Multiple walls of text, please understand lol. But I did read your post about TPP, and I'll address a few things, though it won't be a full blown response. "many economists" This is concerning. Already it's apparent that this isn't some sort of consensus. A large problem I have with these things is statements like "would have" when applied to predictions. No matter what side it is, no discussion about what specifically is being done in the deal is made, and only what predicted results will be. And as far as "economists" go, you have many that are willing to state that capitalism is the worst economic model we could have, or some other crazy statement. I've learned a long time ago not to take "many experts" at face value. In short, I doubt a lot of the proposed "benefits" listed here. "the U.S. economy would have had 128,000 more total jobs by 2032" "he agreement would have eliminated over 11,000 tariffs on goods the United States exports by 2030" ... "would have increased annual U.S. exports by $357 billion by that year." Ignoring the "would have's" here, what we're seeing is a focus on long term benefits rather than short term results. Of course it's great to secure the future, but the kind of deal we're talking about isn't even guaranteed results, and the forecasted result here isn't even that stellar. The increase in exports here falls in line with what you could predict it would already increase even without TPP or any trade agreement, other than the downward trend in exports since 2014 (till 2016). "it would have addressed child labor practices and introduced minimum wages in Vietnam and other member nations, making it easier for U.S. workers to compete." This spells bad news for nations like Vietnam, which rely on this front that they can compete in to help their citizens stave off extreme poverty. It might help the US in some regard, but it will also result in more expensive goods, as well as impoverishing these poor nations. Hardly a humanitarian goal here. "TPP would have forced member states to reform their markets with few U.S. concessions" We're already coming to experience how this can be achieved without TPP. US imposed tariffs promote fair trade. We're the largest consumer base in the world, and we have the ability to throw our weight around in order to get countries to behave, without any sort of trade agreement. "China’s economy would have been $18 billion smaller had TPP passed. It would also have been difficult for China to join after-the-fact" These don't strike me as good things. China has also opened up its economic borders, which is inviting foreign business, including American businesses, much of which is not moved jobs, but additional jobs, to invest and operate within China on a fair basis. This was done without TPP and is going to spell good news for all involved. So I haven't looked into everything "economists" say, and there could be a lot of valid dialogue there, and at this point I don't have much to offer you on that other than "I doubt these figures", so I'll apologize for that. However even while doubting these figures, the figures themselves don't seem impressive, and align with a predictable growth pattern regardless of whether TPP was active or not.