@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
Edit: I genuinely like Bernie but he has 0 chance of winning.
You want to change the votes of the religious right? Start calling Russia 'Gog' and Turkey 'Magog'. Have your most prominent 'Christian' Democrats start using those terms and I guarantee results. I wish I was kidding but I'm not...
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
Edit: I genuinely like Bernie but he has 0 chance of winning.
Who had chance of winning on democrats in your opinion?
For republicans, IMO Ted Cruz > Ben Carson > Trump. But is just a outsider's opinion.
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
I'm not really referring to '84 and '04. Those were re-elections. Let's also not forget what the Watergate burglars were attempting to steal. They broke into the Democratic headquarters looking for dirt. Sound familiar??
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
Edit: I genuinely like Bernie but he has 0 chance of winning.
Who had chance of winning on democrats in your opinion?
For republicans, IMO Ted Cruz > Ben Carson > Trump. But is just a outsider's opinion.
Biden and maybe Buttigieg now.
Edit: I may be misunderstanding and you're referring to 2016. If so, I think Bernie could have beaten Trump. That's the only alternate reality I can see.
@jjstraka34
Do you think the Clinton impeachment had any bearing on the 2000 election? I'm just curious as to your opinion. Maybe the Democrats are trying the same tactic if it is seen as having worked back then.
I think it caused Gore to run away from him when he was still wildly popular, caused him to put Liberman on the ticket, which led to a lot of "there is no difference betwern the parties" that even I bought into, because I was 18 and letting Rage Against the Machine dictate my politics. I wised up about 48 hours after election night.
I still think Gore probably won Florida. I think there is at least a 50/50 chance 9/11 never happens if Gore is in office (though if it had, you would have NEVER seen the months if not YEARS of benefit of the doubt Democrats gave to Bush initially given to Gore, of that I am as certain of anything ever). The Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida on partisan lines changed this country forever. If you really want to get into the weeds about it, between Nixon basically committing treason by sabotaging Johnson's talks with the Vietnamese during the campaign, and Reagan's people making sure the hostages would not be released to damage Carter, I'm not sure there has been a single Republican Presidency in the last 50+ years that has been obtained legitimately.
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
I'm not really referring to '84 and '04. Those were re-elections. Let's also not forget what the Watergate burglars were attempting to steal. They broke into the Democratic headquarters looking for dirt. Sound familiar??
Fair enough, but that doesn't change my view on Warren or Bernie in 2020.
Here's why the Green New Deal and carbon tax is a loser for the Democratic Party and why I've been for more money on research and less about penalizing people for filling their gas tanks and heating their homes. There will be much more of this in the future.
There's also a lot of research $$$ going into making lignin (an easily renewable resource from plants) into a fuel and feedstock for petrochemicals. Environmentalists risk being left behind as vindictive 'conservatives' with the breakthroughs that are happening in real-time. Anybody predict this? Me for one...
Edit: Ford is VOLUNTARILY developing a fully electric Mustang and F-150. No carbon tax required. So much for the 'evil' corporations wanting to destroy the planet.
Don't even get me started about how the anti-GMO policies in Europe are just a way to protect their farmers from competition from the US. Developing countries use our GMO products to feed their people with '0' consequences but that is never in the news. We're spoonfed so much bullshit it's ridiculous.
Pesticides are another topic entirely. The reduction in bee, butterflies, fireflies, and beetle populations (including ladybugs) and the resulting reductions in birds, bats, and other insectivores needs to be seriously addressed. One person died of equine encephalitis in Michigan due to mosquitoes and they sprayed the whole west side of the state as a result. Over-reaction anybody??
If people would like an example of how even the most mundane of tasks most of us take for granted being able to do everyday can turn into humiliating nighmares for others, I present this story of a transgender women being forced to remove her make-up with hand sanitizer to get her driver's license photo taken:
OMG. The things that traumatize people these days I swear. She'll probably be scarred for life now.
These kids wouldn't survive two minutes in my old High School locker room...
Bullyng is not something to be proud One thing that i personally HATE with passion is this "sheep culture", where the bully can humiliate the victim all day and when the victim teaches the guy a lesson and puts him in his place, the victim is punished. For eg, a guy was stealing launch money and the launch of a smaller child. The smaller child putted a "nasty" thing in her launch and ... Got suspended. That is awful.
Doing nasty things in secret is vengeful cowardice, while bullying is supposed to teach the person to stand up for themselves. Disciplining for the former is the right decision, as that is exactly what breeds domestic school shooters.
Now, if you're trying to say that parents, teachers and supervisors should actually do their damn job of raising the young instead of letting the kids to sort it out between themselves and only stepping in when blood is about to get spilled, then you're entirely right. But this is an completely different problem, that shouldn't be solved at the expense of the first one.
PS Speaking of shootings, dafug have been happening the last 12 months? I'm not sure I can count on one hand the number of shootings, including in schools, that took place in Russia, whereas before then i'd have to count how many years passed between. NATO, pretty please stop interfering with our education system
On impeachment and the law, it's very clear (at least to me) that Trump has regularly broken the law - and continues to do so. Personally I think it would be right to put him on trial for that, but that's not going to happen in the near future. An impeachment process could happen in the near future though and, in the absence of a trial, I think that's the correct thing to do.
My reasoning for that has nothing to do with political expediency and whether such a process would 'play well' with the voters. There are some times when it is appropriate to be guided by principles and do the right thing irrespective of how you think that will be perceived. To accept Trump's flagrant corruption of the political process will only help embed that corruption for the future. We've talked about many of the problematic things that Trump has done and is doing, but if we just restrict the discussion to Ukraine it's worth rehashing an earlier question. How is it possible in any sane world to regard attempting to manipulate a foreign country for your own personal benefit using hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars as anything but a serious abuse of power? And if a serious abuse of power is not impeachable, then what was the point of putting an impeachment process into the Constitution?
Don't even get me started about how the anti-GMO policies in Europe are just a way to protect their farmers from competition from the US. Developing countries use our GMO products to feed their people with '0' consequences but that is never in the news. We're spoonfed so much bullshit it's ridiculous.
Pesticides are another topic entirely. The reduction in bee, butterflies, fireflies, and beetle populations (including ladybugs) and the resulting reductions in birds, bats, and other insectivores needs to be seriously addressed. One person died of equine encephalitis in Michigan due to mosquitoes and they sprayed the whole west side of the state as a result. Over-reaction anybody??
The reason for the anti-GMO policies in Europe is that GM goods are extremely unpopular with the public. I'm sure there is an element of concern about unfounded genetic horror stories underlying that, but I think people are a lot more switched on than you're giving them credit for. One of the greatest concerns actually relates to the second part of your post. A common reason for GM is to give crops greater resistance to pesticides - so that more of those can be used on crops. That can help increase yields, but many trials have shown that's at the expense of wildlife in general. I can understand that would be regarded as less of a problem in the US where very large farms are the norm. In much of Europe though farmland is more integrated with the wider landscape. EU policy aims to support that and the funding follows that - rather than direct subsidies it pays for things like wildlife diversity.
The same sort of dynamic plays out in other areas of policy. For instance there has been a very long-running battle between the EU and the US over chlorine-washed chicken. The US view is that this process ensures meat is safe to eat and therefore should be accepted. The EU view doesn't directly dispute this, but has concerns about the wider raising and slaughtering process - thinking that the use of chlorine washing allows unacceptable procedures to be adopted earlier in that process and is therefore not appropriate.
Edit: Ford is VOLUNTARILY developing a fully electric Mustang and F-150. No carbon tax required. So much for the 'evil' corporations wanting to destroy the planet.
Calling the response voluntary is misleading. Ford (and other companies) are responding to both consumer pressure and legal requirements. The latter may not be evident at the federal level in the US, but they are at state level (part of the reason for the ongoing disputes between California and the federal government over emissions standards). In Europe the EU is gradually ramping up the requirements for moving to zero-emission cars, though many individual countries want to see faster movement. Norway for instance aims to end sales of fossil-fueled cars by 2025 and is well on the way to achieve that (60% of new cars this year are electric vehicles).
If trumps suffer impeachment, there are chances to have Ben Carson or Ted CRuz as next president?
None. If Trump was removed, the Vice President (even though he is up to his neck in this as well) would assume the role of President. Mike Pence is a full-out religious zealot with the personality of a water hose who would have no chance in a general election. There are 3 people who are "next up". One is Nikki Haley, who I can't stand but wouldn't be the end of the world. The ones who worry me most are Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, who share Trump's authoritarian tendencies, Pence's religious zeal, and the militarism of the Bush years all in one package.
As an addendum to my above comment, anti-big government includes non-interference in personal freedom, gender issues not excluded. Adults should be able to decide for themselves. Children otoh is a separate issue that is more grey to me...
The children decide for themselves as well. The only deciding done for them is to try to force them to live in their assigned gender. It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids. In the US, the American Academy of Pediatricians have fairly straightforward guidelines and recommendations for them.
Keeping in mind that children are not given puberty blockers before puberty starts and don't have access to surgery until their older, the only thing that happens prior to that is name and wardrobe change, really. And of course any child can change their minds (although very few do so). Time reported on a recent study that shows transgender children have virtually identical gender development as their cisgender peers of the same gender, and research from Texas A&M shows that respecting their chosen names and pronouns alleviates much of the suffering from gender dysphoria.
Sondland's prepared statements this morning directly implicate Trump and Giuliani as being behind this. This is a guy who basically bribed his way to an Ambassadorship by giving Trump's inaugural a million dollars. Republicans will start trying to paint him as a Never-Trumper in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1........
Sondland's prepared statements this morning directly implicate Trump and Giuliani as being behind this. This is a guy who basically bribed his way to an Ambassadorship by giving Trump's inaugural a million dollars. Republicans will start trying to paint him as a Never-Trumper in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1........
The GOP were/are attempting to make him the fall guy. That has now blown up.
Expect the GOP to ask if he specifically spoke with Trump about this or if he had to go through Mulvaney. He’s going to be the sacrificial goat when this all comes to and end.
They may still attempt to paint him as a person who is now lying in an attempt to save his own skin. Wouldn’t put it past them to attempt this. They don’t need to prove anything, just muddy the waters.
Sondland's prepared statements this morning directly implicate Trump and Giuliani as being behind this. This is a guy who basically bribed his way to an Ambassadorship by giving Trump's inaugural a million dollars. Republicans will start trying to paint him as a Never-Trumper in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1........
The GOP were/are attempting to make him the fall guy. That has now blown up.
Expect the GOP to ask if he specifically spoke with Trump about this or if he had to go through Mulvaney. He’s going to be the sacrificial goat when this all comes to and end.
They may still attempt to paint him as a person who is now lying in an attempt to save his own skin. Wouldn’t put it past them to attempt this. They don’t need to prove anything, just muddy the waters.
Mulvaney and Pompeo can testify at any time they see fit to set the record straight. The people we have heard from so far are going to the Hill DESPITE the White House refusing to cooperate. Pompeo and Mulvaney cannot risk the President's ire in such a way, thus, they will not show. But everyone knows what I'm about to say deep down is true: the people who have testified thus far are lower level than the absolute top, and have done so under oath. Their bosses are refusing to testify though they are insisting it's all a hoax. It is a mortal certainty that the people who are REFUSING to testify are the ones lying.
A word about Colonel Vindman: the bullshit Republicans have been pulling since 9/11 about "supporting the troops" has always been one of the most infuriating things in politics to me, because it is a narrative the media repeats, but yesterday put it to bed forever. This is not the first time they have tried to rat-fuck a service member or intelligence community operative, but it's the most nakedly craven. They are smearing a Purple Heart recipient for doing nothing but coming forward and telling us what he knows, to the point they are insinuating he is a double-agent for Ukraine and he is now receiving death threats and his family may have to be moved to a military base. He made a comment to his father in his statements, saying "don't worry, I won't be punished for telling the truth in this country" (paraphrasing). Not if the Republicans have their way good sir. They couldn't care less if some MAGA chud puts a bullet in your head. The Democrats may suck in countless ways, but the Republican Party is now so irredeemably vile and beyond redemption that it boggles the mind.
And for any rank and file Trump supporter with those useless yellow ribbons on the back of your SUV?? Go ahead and take that off. It never meant anything anyway, but the GOP has proven that they only honor your service if you don't tell the truth about Dear Leader. Well, that and they really enjoy pardoning the ones who are convicted war criminals like Trump did last week, which as far as I'm concerned was the equivalent of if Clinton had decided to pardon the Una-Bomber or Jeffrey Dahmer. Trump pardoned 3 MURDERERS last week.
Edit: Sondland's testimony is basically John Dean. He is giving up everything. Trump, Giuliani, Pompeo and Mulvaney were behind it all. Maybe this is the "pizazzz" moment many feckless pundits in the media were lamenting we hadn't had, which was a stupid, barstool sports take on the matter anyway. Also, as I said weeks ago, this point ALSO puts to bed the idea it was ever about corruption:
It simply needed to be a show to play on endless loops for months on American media to take out the person he is, for whatever reason, most concerned about as his opponent. It demonstrates, like all of their actions, the absolute corrupt intent. But frankly I don't know how anyone could have ever possibly believed this patriarch of a family of dirtbag grifters would have ever cared about such a thing in the first place. Trump wanted an investigation of Biden the same way he "fired" people on The Apprentice. As a show to eliminate him with a bogus foreign investigation he was demanding for release of the aid. On FOX News tonight, I wouldn't be surprised if they just played the national anthem at 7:00pm and then went to a static screen so their viewers can watch it like Carol Ann in "Poltergeist".
And just for fun, here you can watch Devin Nunes' soul leave his body in real-time. You don't have to be a body language expert for this one:
It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids.
There is, and I provided plenty of sources for that in the past few weeks. It's worth taking a look at. Better yet, find out for yourself what evidence exists for this treatment and how strong the evidence is. The only answer a rational person can come to is "not much, and very weak". Much of the most important information is virtually unknown. Only political ideology props this up as some sacred, untouchable ground.
I see this thread has dived head first into the latest manufactured controversy. After being proven right on the Russia thing which went on for years I just don't care enough to get into every little detail about this obvious charade. Just like the Russia thing, people will invest far too much personal energy into it to make an almost objective analysis possible, and just like the Russia thing, evidence, or the lack thereof, ultimately won't matter.
It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids.
There is, and I provided plenty of sources for that in the past few weeks. It's worth taking a look at. Better yet, find out for yourself what evidence exists for this treatment and how strong the evidence is. The only answer a rational person can come to is "not much, and very weak". Much of the most important information is virtually unknown. Only political ideology props this up as some sacred, untouchable ground.
I see this thread has dived head first into the latest manufactured controversy. After being proven right on the Russia thing which went on for years I just don't care enough to get into every little detail about this obvious charade. Just like the Russia thing, people will invest far too much personal energy into it to make an almost objective analysis possible, and just like the Russia thing, evidence, or the lack thereof, ultimately won't matter.
Are you living in some sort of alternate dimension?? Everything YOU YOURSELF used as a defense a month ago in regards to the Ukraine situation has been proven to be categorically false by people in Trump's own Administration, under oath time and time again. You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was. You said Trump was doing it to root out corruption, we now know he didn't even want an actual investigation, just the veneer of one so he could sell the narrative. You said the aid wasn't being held up for this reason, the aid WAS being held up for this reason. You don't care to wade into it because there is nowhere left of you to move the goalposts. You're out of stadiums to put them in. Manufactured?? Is that what the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are going with this afternoon??
In regards to Russia, Trump's longtime political guru was just found guilty on ALL counts, and his trial revealed (surprise!) that Trump himself categorically lied to Mueller about his conversations with Stone about Wikileaks. And the only reason nothing "came of it" is because Mueller never had any authority to do so from the starting gun because of Trump's criminal immunity as per DoJ mandate. There are TEN incidences of obstruction of the investigation in Part 2 alone, including requests to create falsified records.
You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was.
Lol based on what? I listened to the whole thing. He provides not a single shred of evidence such a thing exists. If i'm wrong, point me to it. He points the finger at Guiliani, sure, but he provides virtually nothing to substantiate it, nor anything that suggests Trump desired it. His word vs the word of someone else doesn't cut it, especially when there are plenty of communications to draw from including WhatsApp messages and all the rest.
I recall several other times in the past few years where explosive claims rested on the statements of a single or handful of individuals, and no other evidence. None of them ended up being particularly credible, nor damaging. I just don't take people at their word, or in this case what they presume, when it comes to criminal conduct.
You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was.
Lol based on what? I listened to the whole thing. He provides not a single shred of evidence such a thing exists. If i'm wrong, point me to it. He points the finger at Guiliani, sure, but he provides virtually nothing to substantiate it, nor anything that suggests Trump desired it. His word vs the word of someone else doesn't cut it, especially when there are plenty of communications to draw from including WhatsApp messages and all the rest.
I recall several other times in the past few years where explosive claims rested on the statements of a single or handful of individuals, and no other evidence. None of them ended up being particularly credible, nor damaging. I just don't take people at their word, or in this case what they presume, when it comes to criminal conduct.
What, are you assuming Rudy Giuliani is just free-lancing in the Ukraine PRETENDING to speak for Trump?? Despite being his personal criminal defense attorney?? Despite everyone in the State Department and even John Bolton saying Rudy was a ticking time bomb?? If they have so much to say and can refute what everyone has said under oath, then let's see Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Giuliani take the stand and tell their version of the story. Where are they?? Clearly, according to you, they have nothing to hide. They can turn over all the relevant documents and produce all the relevant witnesses who can swear under oath just like everyone else (Administration officials ALL) have done so far. What is your explanation for why they won't??
I don't need to run defense for them, really. The prosecution has to prove their case, I don't need to prove their innocence. And I am sure Guiliani is a slimeball all by himself. It wouldn't surprise me if he *did* say those things, frankly, of his own will without consulting Trump, because that strikes me as a very Guiliani move. Soderland (sp?) himself stated he never heard any of this stuff from Trump, only Guilani, and everything we have heard elsewhere seems to corroborate that.
I would like to see him take the stand, because i'm sure there's something we don't know. But i'm not sure i'd even trust his testimony.
It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids.
There is, and I provided plenty of sources for that in the past few weeks. It's worth taking a look at. Better yet, find out for yourself what evidence exists for this treatment and how strong the evidence is. The only answer a rational person can come to is "not much, and very weak". Much of the most important information is virtually unknown. Only political ideology props this up as some sacred, untouchable ground.
Yes, find out for yourself what evidence exists for treatment options for transgender people.
Scientists have been researching this for years. The research is already here, and the findings are already conclusive. A systematic review of 38 different studies found that the research indicated that medical transition improved mental health for transgender people.
The notion that there is "not much" evidence is false. This is well-researched territory. The notion that the evidence is "very weak" is false. Plenty of studies have found clear and, yes, statistically significant evidence that transitioning improves mental health for trans folks. The notion that the issue is "virtually unknown" is false. There's an entire field of medicine dedicated to trans issues. You can find study after study demonstrating the same conclusion in mere minutes.
Every doubt I've ever heard expressed about transgender treatment comes from people who have no training, no experience, no education, and no credentials for treating transgender patients. Actual medical health professionals in the field, the people who actually study the subject and work with transgender patients, have a very different view.
We have a massive number of political actors who are opposed to medical treatment for transgender folks for strictly ideological reasons, and yet they accuse actual medical health professionals of being motivated by politics. The pot is preemptively calling the kettle black.
Political ideology isn't the reason why medical professionals offer treatment to trans people. Political ideology is the reason why non-professionals are opposed to the best and only treatment for gender dysphoria.
You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was.
Lol based on what? I listened to the whole thing. He provides not a single shred of evidence such a thing exists. If i'm wrong, point me to it. He points the finger at Guiliani, sure, but he provides virtually nothing to substantiate it, nor anything that suggests Trump desired it. His word vs the word of someone else doesn't cut it, especially when there are plenty of communications to draw from including WhatsApp messages and all the rest.
I recall several other times in the past few years where explosive claims rested on the statements of a single or handful of individuals, and no other evidence. None of them ended up being particularly credible, nor damaging. I just don't take people at their word, or in this case what they presume, when it comes to criminal conduct.
Because just like the Russian Investigation, this administration is relying on Obstruction of Justice to prevent their crimes from coming to light, and before today, it was working.
They got to run on the narrative that this was all second hand accounts. Not anymore.
All documents related to the Ukraine, that is being held by the White House needs to be handed over to determine where exactly these orders were coming from.
Text messages to and from Trump and Giuliani will determine who the bigger idiot is, but I do not think Trump gets a pass if Giuliani was running rogue. Trump insisted Giuliani be a part of this and should be held accountable for his actions.
It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids.
There is, and I provided plenty of sources for that in the past few weeks. It's worth taking a look at. Better yet, find out for yourself what evidence exists for this treatment and how strong the evidence is. The only answer a rational person can come to is "not much, and very weak". Much of the most important information is virtually unknown. Only political ideology props this up as some sacred, untouchable ground.
Yes, find out for yourself what evidence exists for treatment options for transgender people.
Scientists have been researching this for years. The research is already here, and the findings are already conclusive. A systematic review of 38 different studies found that the research indicated that medical transition improved mental health for transgender people.
The notion that there is "not much" evidence is false. This is well-researched territory. The notion that the evidence is "very weak" is false. Plenty of studies have found clear and, yes, statistically significant evidence that transitioning improves mental health for trans folks. The notion that the issue is "virtually unknown" is false. There's an entire field of medicine dedicated to trans issues. You can find study after study demonstrating the same conclusion in mere minutes.
Every doubt I've ever heard expressed about transgender treatment comes from people who have no training, no experience, no education, and no credentials for treating transgender patients. Actual medical health professionals in the field, the people who actually study the subject and work with transgender patients, have a very different view.
We have a massive number of political actors who are opposed to medical treatment for transgender folks for strictly ideological reasons, and yet they accuse actual medical health professionals of being motivated by politics. The pot is preemptively calling the kettle black.
Political ideology isn't the reason why medical professionals offer treatment to trans people. Political ideology is the reason why non-professionals are opposed to the best and only treatment for gender dysphoria.
You are simply talking around me, rather than engaging with what i'm saying. I did not say no study supported it. Studies also claim it as harmful. What I said was all evidence that exists is very weak. If it is so easy to find pro-trans studies, it should be just as easy to research the strength of the evidence, which again, is very weak due to methodological errors that have not yet been accounted for.
Saying I have no medical experience therefore I can't know the general state of the evidence cuts both ways. Are you a medical expert in trans issues? If not, your opinion isn't any more valid than mine.
"The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
The methodological shortcomings have many reasons. First, the nature of sex reassignment precludes double blind randomized controlled studies of the result. Second, transsexualism is rare [20] and many follow-ups are hampered by small numbers of subjects.[5], [8], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Third, many sex reassigned persons decline to participate in follow-up studies, or relocate after surgery, resulting in high drop-out rates and consequent selection bias.[6], [9], [12], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30] Forth, several follow-up studies are hampered by limited follow-up periods.[7], [9], [21], [22], [26], [30] Taken together, these limitations preclude solid and generalisable conclusions. A long-term population-based controlled study is one way to address these methodological shortcomings."
"Guardian Weekend asked Birmingham University's Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (Arif) to assess the findings of more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals. Arif, which conducts reviews of healthcare treatments for the NHS, concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favour of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counselling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time."
"Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding, and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up."
You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was.
Lol based on what? I listened to the whole thing. He provides not a single shred of evidence such a thing exists. If i'm wrong, point me to it. He points the finger at Guiliani, sure, but he provides virtually nothing to substantiate it, nor anything that suggests Trump desired it. His word vs the word of someone else doesn't cut it, especially when there are plenty of communications to draw from including WhatsApp messages and all the rest.
I recall several other times in the past few years where explosive claims rested on the statements of a single or handful of individuals, and no other evidence. None of them ended up being particularly credible, nor damaging. I just don't take people at their word, or in this case what they presume, when it comes to criminal conduct.
Because just like the Russian Investigation, this administration is relying on Obstruction of Justice to prevent their crimes from coming to light, and before today, it was working.
They got to run on the narrative that this was all second hand accounts. Not anymore.
All documents related to the Ukraine, that is being held by the White House needs to be handed over to determine where exactly these orders were coming from.
Text messages to and from Trump and Giuliani will determine who the bigger idiot is, but I do not think Trump gets a pass if Giuliani was running rogue. Trump insisted Giuliani be a part of this and should be held accountable for his actions.
It's a little silly to say that Trump obstructed justice during the Russia investigation to "prevent his crimes coming to light". First off, because it assumes for a fact an underlying crime happened which is clearly not the case when it comes to Russia. Second because he didn't even do anything to earn the obstruction charge, it was all about what he either tried to do or said he wanted to do, little fuzzy on the details. Either way, it never happened, and so the idea that he was able to prevent crimes from coming to light by committing obstruction is just so far removed from the facts.
But this is why I said facts don't matter when it comes to these hot-button issues. The narrative is set, and facts just get in the way.
@WarChiefZeke: I don't know how you found these sources, but I did not search for any particular conclusion. I just searched for "effects of transgender hormone therapy on mental health" and picked the most recent articles.
Your first source is dated more than 8 years ago. Your second source is dated more than 15 years ago. And the third source specifically points out that it was only addressing patients on Medicare, and only for the purposes of determining whether to pay for treatment (and it's not like government officials are generally the first people to support trans health care).
Most importantly, all three sources focus strictly on sex reassignment surgery, which most transgender people do not undertake. The standard treatment for trans folks is HRT and counseling; not surgery. On top of that, the surgery back then wasn't even the same quality as it is today, so even for the minority of trans people that get it, the procedure isn't the same.
These sources are extremely out of date, narrow in scope, and they only address the rarest form of medical treatment. They're not just unreliable; they're not even about the right subject.
I wouldn't recommend outdated surgical practices by less-educated professionals 10-20 years ago, either. But that doesn't mean I cast doubt on a completely different form of treatment that involves pills instead of surgery. It's like questioning the value of modern blood thinners by citing the uselessness of leeches.
Hormone therapy is the standard medical treatment for trans people, and that treatment is well-supported.
Comments
Reagan 1984, the biggest landslide in relatively recent history was illegitimate? You lost me there.
You may not agree with public opinion but the public elects our representatives. That's why both Bernie or Warren lose in 2020. You can quote me on that.
Edit: I genuinely like Bernie but he has 0 chance of winning.
Who had chance of winning on democrats in your opinion?
For republicans, IMO Ted Cruz > Ben Carson > Trump. But is just a outsider's opinion.
I'm not really referring to '84 and '04. Those were re-elections. Let's also not forget what the Watergate burglars were attempting to steal. They broke into the Democratic headquarters looking for dirt. Sound familiar??
Biden and maybe Buttigieg now.
Edit: I may be misunderstanding and you're referring to 2016. If so, I think Bernie could have beaten Trump. That's the only alternate reality I can see.
Fair enough, but that doesn't change my view on Warren or Bernie in 2020.
There's also a lot of research $$$ going into making lignin (an easily renewable resource from plants) into a fuel and feedstock for petrochemicals. Environmentalists risk being left behind as vindictive 'conservatives' with the breakthroughs that are happening in real-time. Anybody predict this? Me for one...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2019/11/19/heliogens-new-technology-could-unlock-renewable-energy-for-industrial-manufacturing/amp/
Edit: Ford is VOLUNTARILY developing a fully electric Mustang and F-150. No carbon tax required. So much for the 'evil' corporations wanting to destroy the planet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-carbon-taxes-fail-to-satisfy-the-smell-test-for-voters-what-went-wrong/amp
Pesticides are another topic entirely. The reduction in bee, butterflies, fireflies, and beetle populations (including ladybugs) and the resulting reductions in birds, bats, and other insectivores needs to be seriously addressed. One person died of equine encephalitis in Michigan due to mosquitoes and they sprayed the whole west side of the state as a result. Over-reaction anybody??
Now, if you're trying to say that parents, teachers and supervisors should actually do their damn job of raising the young instead of letting the kids to sort it out between themselves and only stepping in when blood is about to get spilled, then you're entirely right. But this is an completely different problem, that shouldn't be solved at the expense of the first one.
PS Speaking of shootings, dafug have been happening the last 12 months? I'm not sure I can count on one hand the number of shootings, including in schools, that took place in Russia, whereas before then i'd have to count how many years passed between. NATO, pretty please stop interfering with our education system
My reasoning for that has nothing to do with political expediency and whether such a process would 'play well' with the voters. There are some times when it is appropriate to be guided by principles and do the right thing irrespective of how you think that will be perceived. To accept Trump's flagrant corruption of the political process will only help embed that corruption for the future. We've talked about many of the problematic things that Trump has done and is doing, but if we just restrict the discussion to Ukraine it's worth rehashing an earlier question. How is it possible in any sane world to regard attempting to manipulate a foreign country for your own personal benefit using hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars as anything but a serious abuse of power? And if a serious abuse of power is not impeachable, then what was the point of putting an impeachment process into the Constitution?
The reason for the anti-GMO policies in Europe is that GM goods are extremely unpopular with the public. I'm sure there is an element of concern about unfounded genetic horror stories underlying that, but I think people are a lot more switched on than you're giving them credit for. One of the greatest concerns actually relates to the second part of your post. A common reason for GM is to give crops greater resistance to pesticides - so that more of those can be used on crops. That can help increase yields, but many trials have shown that's at the expense of wildlife in general. I can understand that would be regarded as less of a problem in the US where very large farms are the norm. In much of Europe though farmland is more integrated with the wider landscape. EU policy aims to support that and the funding follows that - rather than direct subsidies it pays for things like wildlife diversity.
The same sort of dynamic plays out in other areas of policy. For instance there has been a very long-running battle between the EU and the US over chlorine-washed chicken. The US view is that this process ensures meat is safe to eat and therefore should be accepted. The EU view doesn't directly dispute this, but has concerns about the wider raising and slaughtering process - thinking that the use of chlorine washing allows unacceptable procedures to be adopted earlier in that process and is therefore not appropriate.
Calling the response voluntary is misleading. Ford (and other companies) are responding to both consumer pressure and legal requirements. The latter may not be evident at the federal level in the US, but they are at state level (part of the reason for the ongoing disputes between California and the federal government over emissions standards). In Europe the EU is gradually ramping up the requirements for moving to zero-emission cars, though many individual countries want to see faster movement. Norway for instance aims to end sales of fossil-fueled cars by 2025 and is well on the way to achieve that (60% of new cars this year are electric vehicles).
None. If Trump was removed, the Vice President (even though he is up to his neck in this as well) would assume the role of President. Mike Pence is a full-out religious zealot with the personality of a water hose who would have no chance in a general election. There are 3 people who are "next up". One is Nikki Haley, who I can't stand but wouldn't be the end of the world. The ones who worry me most are Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, who share Trump's authoritarian tendencies, Pence's religious zeal, and the militarism of the Bush years all in one package.
The children decide for themselves as well. The only deciding done for them is to try to force them to live in their assigned gender. It's not really a gray area, as there's no real dispute regarding the science of treating transgender kids. In the US, the American Academy of Pediatricians have fairly straightforward guidelines and recommendations for them.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Policy-Statement-Urges-Support-and-Care-of-Transgender-and-Gender-Diverse-Children-and-Adolescents.aspx
Keeping in mind that children are not given puberty blockers before puberty starts and don't have access to surgery until their older, the only thing that happens prior to that is name and wardrobe change, really. And of course any child can change their minds (although very few do so). Time reported on a recent study that shows transgender children have virtually identical gender development as their cisgender peers of the same gender, and research from Texas A&M shows that respecting their chosen names and pronouns alleviates much of the suffering from gender dysphoria.
The GOP were/are attempting to make him the fall guy. That has now blown up.
Expect the GOP to ask if he specifically spoke with Trump about this or if he had to go through Mulvaney. He’s going to be the sacrificial goat when this all comes to and end.
They may still attempt to paint him as a person who is now lying in an attempt to save his own skin. Wouldn’t put it past them to attempt this. They don’t need to prove anything, just muddy the waters.
Mulvaney and Pompeo can testify at any time they see fit to set the record straight. The people we have heard from so far are going to the Hill DESPITE the White House refusing to cooperate. Pompeo and Mulvaney cannot risk the President's ire in such a way, thus, they will not show. But everyone knows what I'm about to say deep down is true: the people who have testified thus far are lower level than the absolute top, and have done so under oath. Their bosses are refusing to testify though they are insisting it's all a hoax. It is a mortal certainty that the people who are REFUSING to testify are the ones lying.
A word about Colonel Vindman: the bullshit Republicans have been pulling since 9/11 about "supporting the troops" has always been one of the most infuriating things in politics to me, because it is a narrative the media repeats, but yesterday put it to bed forever. This is not the first time they have tried to rat-fuck a service member or intelligence community operative, but it's the most nakedly craven. They are smearing a Purple Heart recipient for doing nothing but coming forward and telling us what he knows, to the point they are insinuating he is a double-agent for Ukraine and he is now receiving death threats and his family may have to be moved to a military base. He made a comment to his father in his statements, saying "don't worry, I won't be punished for telling the truth in this country" (paraphrasing). Not if the Republicans have their way good sir. They couldn't care less if some MAGA chud puts a bullet in your head. The Democrats may suck in countless ways, but the Republican Party is now so irredeemably vile and beyond redemption that it boggles the mind.
And for any rank and file Trump supporter with those useless yellow ribbons on the back of your SUV?? Go ahead and take that off. It never meant anything anyway, but the GOP has proven that they only honor your service if you don't tell the truth about Dear Leader. Well, that and they really enjoy pardoning the ones who are convicted war criminals like Trump did last week, which as far as I'm concerned was the equivalent of if Clinton had decided to pardon the Una-Bomber or Jeffrey Dahmer. Trump pardoned 3 MURDERERS last week.
Edit: Sondland's testimony is basically John Dean. He is giving up everything. Trump, Giuliani, Pompeo and Mulvaney were behind it all. Maybe this is the "pizazzz" moment many feckless pundits in the media were lamenting we hadn't had, which was a stupid, barstool sports take on the matter anyway. Also, as I said weeks ago, this point ALSO puts to bed the idea it was ever about corruption:
It simply needed to be a show to play on endless loops for months on American media to take out the person he is, for whatever reason, most concerned about as his opponent. It demonstrates, like all of their actions, the absolute corrupt intent. But frankly I don't know how anyone could have ever possibly believed this patriarch of a family of dirtbag grifters would have ever cared about such a thing in the first place. Trump wanted an investigation of Biden the same way he "fired" people on The Apprentice. As a show to eliminate him with a bogus foreign investigation he was demanding for release of the aid. On FOX News tonight, I wouldn't be surprised if they just played the national anthem at 7:00pm and then went to a static screen so their viewers can watch it like Carol Ann in "Poltergeist".
And just for fun, here you can watch Devin Nunes' soul leave his body in real-time. You don't have to be a body language expert for this one:
But then again, this is also true:
There is, and I provided plenty of sources for that in the past few weeks. It's worth taking a look at. Better yet, find out for yourself what evidence exists for this treatment and how strong the evidence is. The only answer a rational person can come to is "not much, and very weak". Much of the most important information is virtually unknown. Only political ideology props this up as some sacred, untouchable ground.
I see this thread has dived head first into the latest manufactured controversy. After being proven right on the Russia thing which went on for years I just don't care enough to get into every little detail about this obvious charade. Just like the Russia thing, people will invest far too much personal energy into it to make an almost objective analysis possible, and just like the Russia thing, evidence, or the lack thereof, ultimately won't matter.
Are you living in some sort of alternate dimension?? Everything YOU YOURSELF used as a defense a month ago in regards to the Ukraine situation has been proven to be categorically false by people in Trump's own Administration, under oath time and time again. You said there was no quid pro quo, we now know there was. You said Trump was doing it to root out corruption, we now know he didn't even want an actual investigation, just the veneer of one so he could sell the narrative. You said the aid wasn't being held up for this reason, the aid WAS being held up for this reason. You don't care to wade into it because there is nowhere left of you to move the goalposts. You're out of stadiums to put them in. Manufactured?? Is that what the Daily Wire and the Daily Caller are going with this afternoon??
In regards to Russia, Trump's longtime political guru was just found guilty on ALL counts, and his trial revealed (surprise!) that Trump himself categorically lied to Mueller about his conversations with Stone about Wikileaks. And the only reason nothing "came of it" is because Mueller never had any authority to do so from the starting gun because of Trump's criminal immunity as per DoJ mandate. There are TEN incidences of obstruction of the investigation in Part 2 alone, including requests to create falsified records.
Lol based on what? I listened to the whole thing. He provides not a single shred of evidence such a thing exists. If i'm wrong, point me to it. He points the finger at Guiliani, sure, but he provides virtually nothing to substantiate it, nor anything that suggests Trump desired it. His word vs the word of someone else doesn't cut it, especially when there are plenty of communications to draw from including WhatsApp messages and all the rest.
I recall several other times in the past few years where explosive claims rested on the statements of a single or handful of individuals, and no other evidence. None of them ended up being particularly credible, nor damaging. I just don't take people at their word, or in this case what they presume, when it comes to criminal conduct.
What, are you assuming Rudy Giuliani is just free-lancing in the Ukraine PRETENDING to speak for Trump?? Despite being his personal criminal defense attorney?? Despite everyone in the State Department and even John Bolton saying Rudy was a ticking time bomb?? If they have so much to say and can refute what everyone has said under oath, then let's see Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Giuliani take the stand and tell their version of the story. Where are they?? Clearly, according to you, they have nothing to hide. They can turn over all the relevant documents and produce all the relevant witnesses who can swear under oath just like everyone else (Administration officials ALL) have done so far. What is your explanation for why they won't??
I would like to see him take the stand, because i'm sure there's something we don't know. But i'm not sure i'd even trust his testimony.
Scientists have been researching this for years. The research is already here, and the findings are already conclusive. A systematic review of 38 different studies found that the research indicated that medical transition improved mental health for transgender people.
The notion that there is "not much" evidence is false. This is well-researched territory. The notion that the evidence is "very weak" is false. Plenty of studies have found clear and, yes, statistically significant evidence that transitioning improves mental health for trans folks. The notion that the issue is "virtually unknown" is false. There's an entire field of medicine dedicated to trans issues. You can find study after study demonstrating the same conclusion in mere minutes.
Every doubt I've ever heard expressed about transgender treatment comes from people who have no training, no experience, no education, and no credentials for treating transgender patients. Actual medical health professionals in the field, the people who actually study the subject and work with transgender patients, have a very different view.
We have a massive number of political actors who are opposed to medical treatment for transgender folks for strictly ideological reasons, and yet they accuse actual medical health professionals of being motivated by politics. The pot is preemptively calling the kettle black.
Political ideology isn't the reason why medical professionals offer treatment to trans people. Political ideology is the reason why non-professionals are opposed to the best and only treatment for gender dysphoria.
Because just like the Russian Investigation, this administration is relying on Obstruction of Justice to prevent their crimes from coming to light, and before today, it was working.
They got to run on the narrative that this was all second hand accounts. Not anymore.
All documents related to the Ukraine, that is being held by the White House needs to be handed over to determine where exactly these orders were coming from.
Text messages to and from Trump and Giuliani will determine who the bigger idiot is, but I do not think Trump gets a pass if Giuliani was running rogue. Trump insisted Giuliani be a part of this and should be held accountable for his actions.
You are simply talking around me, rather than engaging with what i'm saying. I did not say no study supported it. Studies also claim it as harmful. What I said was all evidence that exists is very weak. If it is so easy to find pro-trans studies, it should be just as easy to research the strength of the evidence, which again, is very weak due to methodological errors that have not yet been accounted for.
Saying I have no medical experience therefore I can't know the general state of the evidence cuts both ways. Are you a medical expert in trans issues? If not, your opinion isn't any more valid than mine.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
"The authors concluded though that the evidence base for sex reassignment “is of very low quality due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
The methodological shortcomings have many reasons. First, the nature of sex reassignment precludes double blind randomized controlled studies of the result. Second, transsexualism is rare [20] and many follow-ups are hampered by small numbers of subjects.[5], [8], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Third, many sex reassigned persons decline to participate in follow-up studies, or relocate after surgery, resulting in high drop-out rates and consequent selection bias.[6], [9], [12], [21], [24], [28], [29], [30] Forth, several follow-up studies are hampered by limited follow-up periods.[7], [9], [21], [22], [26], [30] Taken together, these limitations preclude solid and generalisable conclusions. A long-term population-based controlled study is one way to address these methodological shortcomings."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/31/health.socialcare
"Guardian Weekend asked Birmingham University's Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (Arif) to assess the findings of more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals. Arif, which conducts reviews of healthcare treatments for the NHS, concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favour of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counselling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time."
https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-proposed-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=282
"Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding, and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up."
It's a little silly to say that Trump obstructed justice during the Russia investigation to "prevent his crimes coming to light". First off, because it assumes for a fact an underlying crime happened which is clearly not the case when it comes to Russia. Second because he didn't even do anything to earn the obstruction charge, it was all about what he either tried to do or said he wanted to do, little fuzzy on the details. Either way, it never happened, and so the idea that he was able to prevent crimes from coming to light by committing obstruction is just so far removed from the facts.
But this is why I said facts don't matter when it comes to these hot-button issues. The narrative is set, and facts just get in the way.
Your first source is dated more than 8 years ago. Your second source is dated more than 15 years ago. And the third source specifically points out that it was only addressing patients on Medicare, and only for the purposes of determining whether to pay for treatment (and it's not like government officials are generally the first people to support trans health care).
Most importantly, all three sources focus strictly on sex reassignment surgery, which most transgender people do not undertake. The standard treatment for trans folks is HRT and counseling; not surgery. On top of that, the surgery back then wasn't even the same quality as it is today, so even for the minority of trans people that get it, the procedure isn't the same.
These sources are extremely out of date, narrow in scope, and they only address the rarest form of medical treatment. They're not just unreliable; they're not even about the right subject.
I wouldn't recommend outdated surgical practices by less-educated professionals 10-20 years ago, either. But that doesn't mean I cast doubt on a completely different form of treatment that involves pills instead of surgery. It's like questioning the value of modern blood thinners by citing the uselessness of leeches.
Hormone therapy is the standard medical treatment for trans people, and that treatment is well-supported.