Trump "Press Conference" Game Thread

[Zoo_View]

HY2012 should be forced to sit and watch his press conference for the entire hour and four minutes. And then forced to ruminate on the fact that come November, he will have voted THREE TIMES to allow this lunatic to run this country. There should be much shame and self-reflection involved.

You’re expecting HY2012 to reflect? To feel shame?

 

[CFordUNC]

Off the top of my head:

-Self-governance rather than government dependence. Significantly cut the fat in various governmental agencies
-Merit based society with EQUALITY (i.e equal opportunity), instead of DEI/affirmative action/equity-based (i.e. equal outcomes) society
-Secure the southern border. To enter the country you must receive consent, and consent is based on people who will be productive members of society and share American values.
-No senseless wars
-America first. Make our allies pay their fair share in our alliances.
-Ban gender “care” for minors
-Make the USA the dominant energy producer in the world

I effing love a good policy debate! Been looking for one for a while. (And plus you know I'm not remotely trying to get you to change your mind about who you're voting for).

-I agree in theory with the idea of smaller government, less federal spending, creating more efficiency and lest waste in government, etc. Which governmental agencies do you think could use "trimming"? I don't really know, myself. I'm sure there is plenty of administrative bloat in the government but I don't know enough about (1) how much there actually is, (2) where the bloat resides, and (3) which bloated agencies should be trimmed without negatively impacting the government's ability to function efficiently. Wha are your thoughts? Not a 'gotcha' question or anything- I genuinely don't know, myself, and would love to hear your thoughts.

-Agree in principle with the idea of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. I do think we are making good progress on that front with the Supreme Court's decision last summer to eliminate race-based affirmative action admissions policies. I think that socioeconomic and geographical status is a much better criterion for college admission consideration than race, gender, etc. I also think that a lot of companies are retooling their idea of what DEI should mean and how it should be practiced.

-What would you propose for securing the southern border differently than what is being done now? I personally think it's impractical, not to mention logistically impossible, to physically secure the entire border with fences, walls, etc. I'd love to get your thoughts on the GOP tanking their own comprehensive immigration reform and border security bill at the behest of their presidential nominee; a bill that was, objectively, one of the very best and toughest of its kind in generations; one that was created by a very conservative Republican Senator from a very Republican state and had bi-partisan support (not to mention a ton of concessions by the Democrats). I am a firm believer that we should spend a disproportionate amount of money and resources to both secure the southern border AND reform our current system of immigration to be more efficient, more effective, more expedient, and more humane. I think that we should invest in adding more border security personnel, more asylum processing officers, more immigration judges/officials, and more drug enforcement personnel. I think that we should invest in technologically securing the border with radar, imaging, ground sensors, facial recognition tech, surveillance drones, etc. which I think would be a lot more effective than trying to build walls and fences that are easily scaled/tunneled.

-We are currently not directly involved in any war//there are no U.S. boots on the ground in combat situations for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades. Regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, that's laudable IMO.

-As of 2024, 23 of our NATO allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defense, compared to only three of our NATO allies in 2014. Over the past decade, our European NATO allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defense, from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, where they are currently investing a combined total of more than $430 billion (USD) in defense spending. I credit all three of the most recent U.S. presidential administrations for that.

-Definite disagreement from me on banning gender affirming care for minors. I don't think that is the government's place, under any circumstance. I think that it is strictly between parents, their children, and their physicians. Research shows that early gender-affirming care can improve mental health, increase confidence, and help youth focus on social transitions to have comparable outcomes to their peers. Now, I'm not sure that anyone should be able to receive any kind of surgery or series of procedures that alters a person's physical appearance and sexual characteristics to align with their gender identity, until they are at least 18-years of age. But I don't feel that it's my place, the government's place, or anyone's place to dictate personal medical choices for other people. That's the old-school, small government, life and let live, personal freedoms and liberties conservative in me.

-The U.S., under the current administration, is producing more energy domestically than at any other time in the history of our country. Not sure what more we could do there but certainly open to learning more about what we could or should do differently. What are your thoughts?

 

[nycfan]

 

[Geisterfahrer]

He looks pretty old and burnt. Thought he was on ozempic?

 

[nycfan]

 

[lightbluenc]

I effing love a good policy debate! Been looking for one for a while. (And plus you know I'm not remotely trying to get you to change your mind about who you're voting for).

-I agree in theory with the idea of smaller government, less federal spending, creating more efficiency and lest waste in government, etc. Which governmental agencies do you think could use "trimming"? I don't really know, myself. I'm sure there is plenty of administrative bloat in the government but I don't know enough about (1) how much there actually is, (2) where the bloat resides, and (3) which bloated agencies should be trimmed without negatively impacting the government's ability to function efficiently. Wha are your thoughts? Not a 'gotcha' question or anything- I genuinely don't know, myself, and would love to hear your thoughts.

-Agree in principle with the idea of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. I do think we are making good progress on that front with the Supreme Court's decision last summer to eliminate race-based affirmative action admissions policies. I think that socioeconomic and geographical status is a much better criterion for college admission consideration than race, gender, etc. I also think that a lot of companies are retooling their idea of what DEI should mean and how it should be practiced.

-What would you propose for securing the southern border differently than what is being done now? I personally think it's impractical, not to mention logistically impossible, to physically secure the entire border with fences, walls, etc. I'd love to get your thoughts on the GOP tanking their own comprehensive immigration reform and border security bill at the behest of their presidential nominee; a bill that was, objectively, one of the very best and toughest of its kind in generations; one that was created by a very conservative Republican Senator from a very Republican state and had bi-partisan support (not to mention a ton of concessions by the Democrats). I am a firm believer that we should spend a disproportionate amount of money and resources to both secure the southern border AND reform our current system of immigration to be more efficient, more effective, more expedient, and more humane. I think that we should invest in adding more border security personnel, more asylum processing officers, more immigration judges/officials, and more drug enforcement personnel. I think that we should invest in technologically securing the border with radar, imaging, ground sensors, facial recognition tech, surveillance drones, etc. which I think would be a lot more effective than trying to build walls and fences that are easily scaled/tunneled.

-We are currently not directly involved in any war//there are no U.S. boots on the ground in combat situations for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades. Regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, that's laudable IMO.

-As of 2024, 23 of our NATO allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defense, compared to only three of our NATO allies in 2014. Over the past decade, our European NATO allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defense, from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, where they are currently investing a combined total of more than $430 billion (USD) in defense spending. I credit all three of the most recent U.S. presidential administrations for that.

-Definite disagreement from me on banning gender affirming care for minors. I don't think that is the government's place, under any circumstance. I think that it is strictly between parents, their children, and their physicians. Research shows that early gender-affirming care can improve mental health, increase confidence, and help youth focus on social transitions to have comparable outcomes to their peers. Now, I'm not sure that anyone should be able to receive any kind of surgery or series of procedures that alters a person's physical appearance and sexual characteristics to align with their gender identity, until they are at least 18-years of age. But I don't feel that it's my place, the government's place, or anyone's place to dictate personal medical choices for other people. That's the old-school, small government, life and let live, personal freedoms and liberties conservative in me.

-The U.S., under the current administration, is producing more energy domestically than at any other time in the history of our country. Not sure what more we could do there but certainly open to learning more about what we could or should do differently. What are your thoughts?

Sounds like he’s voting for almost the exact policies we currently have in place.

Let’s add a few things to make it even better like restoring roe, better access to healthcare, strengthening the voting rights act and we are in good shape.

 

[nycfan]

just saw him say this:

 

[superrific]

Off the top of my head:

-Self-governance rather than government dependence. Significantly cut the fat in various governmental agencies
-Merit based society with EQUALITY (i.e equal opportunity), instead of DEI/affirmative action/equity-based (i.e. equal outcomes) society
-Secure the southern border. To enter the country you must receive consent, and consent is based on people who will be productive members of society and share American values.
-No senseless wars
-America first. Make our allies pay their fair share in our alliances.
-Ban gender “care” for minors
-Make the USA the dominant energy producer in the world

I hope you are trolling with this. It has been explained to you many, many times that our allies ALREADY pay their fair share. It is not "America First" to antagonize allies. That's the opposite of America First.

As you well know, everyone admitted to the country does receive consent. You keep getting hung up on that little fact. I mean, for real man, read about how this stuff works. I promise you can understand.

There is no fat in government agencies. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the GOP has been running on that talking point for literally 40 years. Whatever fat remains (and there's far, far less than you think) is not going away. Since 1980, when cutting the fat became a big GOP talking point, the GOP has controlled the presidency for 24 years. If you didn't cut the fat then, you are never going to cut it. It's almost as if the GOP doesn't ever want to solve the "problems" they identify, because they are too busy running for office on the same threats, decade after decade.

And finally, though again I am hoping you are trolling, this bit about gender "care" is so tiring. In what universe are you more qualified to determine what is good for minors than the vast majority of medical doctors? My wife sees trans kids every week. It is so repulsive to see some bean counter -- I mean, literally, you are an accountant, right? -- thinking he knows more than MDs.

 

[Scientific Mapp]

I only saw excerpts from the press conference, but I didn't see anything different from the semi-coherent WCW promo stuff he's been doing for 8+ years. I don't understand the consensus here that this was some exceptional meltdown. Yall obviously saw something in this press conference, that I missed, to inspire a 14 page thread.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I effing love a good policy debate! Been looking for one for a while. (And plus you know I'm not remotely trying to get you to change your mind about who you're voting for).

-I agree in theory with the idea of smaller government, less federal spending, creating more efficiency and lest waste in government, etc. Which governmental agencies do you think could use "trimming"? I don't really know, myself. I'm sure there is plenty of administrative bloat in the government but I don't know enough about (1) how much there actually is, (2) where the bloat resides, and (3) which bloated agencies should be trimmed without negatively impacting the government's ability to function efficiently. Wha are your thoughts? Not a 'gotcha' question or anything- I genuinely don't know, myself, and would love to hear your thoughts.

-Agree in principle with the idea of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. I do think we are making good progress on that front with the Supreme Court's decision last summer to eliminate race-based affirmative action admissions policies. I think that socioeconomic and geographical status is a much better criterion for college admission consideration than race, gender, etc. I also think that a lot of companies are retooling their idea of what DEI should mean and how it should be practiced.

-What would you propose for securing the southern border differently than what is being done now? I personally think it's impractical, not to mention logistically impossible, to physically secure the entire border with fences, walls, etc. I'd love to get your thoughts on the GOP tanking their own comprehensive immigration reform and border security bill at the behest of their presidential nominee; a bill that was, objectively, one of the very best and toughest of its kind in generations; one that was created by a very conservative Republican Senator from a very Republican state and had bi-partisan support (not to mention a ton of concessions by the Democrats). I am a firm believer that we should spend a disproportionate amount of money and resources to both secure the southern border AND reform our current system of immigration to be more efficient, more effective, more expedient, and more humane. I think that we should invest in adding more border security personnel, more asylum processing officers, more immigration judges/officials, and more drug enforcement personnel. I think that we should invest in technologically securing the border with radar, imaging, ground sensors, facial recognition tech, surveillance drones, etc. which I think would be a lot more effective than trying to build walls and fences that are easily scaled/tunneled.

-We are currently not directly involved in any war//there are no U.S. boots on the ground in combat situations for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades. Regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, that's laudable IMO.

-As of 2024, 23 of our NATO allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defense, compared to only three of our NATO allies in 2014. Over the past decade, our European NATO allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defense, from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, where they are currently investing a combined total of more than $430 billion (USD) in defense spending. I credit all three of the most recent U.S. presidential administrations for that.

-Definite disagreement from me on banning gender affirming care for minors. I don't think that is the government's place, under any circumstance. I think that it is strictly between parents, their children, and their physicians. Research shows that early gender-affirming care can improve mental health, increase confidence, and help youth focus on social transitions to have comparable outcomes to their peers. Now, I'm not sure that anyone should be able to receive any kind of surgery or series of procedures that alters a person's physical appearance and sexual characteristics to align with their gender identity, until they are at least 18-years of age. But I don't feel that it's my place, the government's place, or anyone's place to dictate personal medical choices for other people. That's the old-school, small government, life and let live, personal freedoms and liberties conservative in me.

-The U.S., under the current administration, is producing more energy domestically than at any other time in the history of our country. Not sure what more we could do there but certainly open to learning more about what we could or should do differently. What are your thoughts?

Draining the swamp: major candidates to be cut significantly are FBI, IRS, ATF, Department of Ed, and I’m sure there are a ton of others. The bloat is just absurd and this is an area where I think Ramaswamy was really on the right track even if he sometimes went a little bit too far - I think he was talking about 75% reductions or similar and maybe that’s possible (idk), but certainly could trim some serious fat from all of these. All the money spent on paying the bureaucrats in the department of education should be rerouted to teachers on the front lines.

Merit: I agree that socioeconomic status should be what is considered for college admissions etc, and not race or gender. A lot of conservatives like me would support factoring in socioeconomic status because that is actually targeting the right people, whereas discriminating based on race goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

Immigration: all I’ll add here is that the reason the bill was tanked was twofold. First, Trump wanted this to be an issue Biden had to explain during the campaign. In his view, after four years of Biden and Harris letting the border crisis rage, he wasn’t in the mood to throw them a lifeline and let them pass bipartisan legislation in an election year that would mitigate Biden/Harris’s #1 weakest area from their administration. That’s just politics but I admit that’s why Republicans like Trump were happy to punt this issue to 2025. The other reason is because that bill did have some compromise in it that Republicans don’t like (Ukraine support was tied together with illegal immigration bill, right?) and they feel like if Trump wins in November, they can get what they want on immigration through Trump executive order without having to make the concessions that were in the bill.

War: no boots on the ground, but the Afghanistan withdrawal was a total clusterfuck and the situations in Ukraine and Gaza are extremely concerning to everyone. The temperature overseas in terms of wars feels a lot less stable right now than it did under Trump.

Fair share: good stats on NATO defense spending. That seems to be moving in the right direction and it needs to. Other G7 countries at a minimum need to be paying their fair share.

Transgender: this is one we’ll just have to disagree on.

Energy: I put this one last because this is the one I’m probably least educated on so I’ll admit that. But as an example, we have an entire agency (see “drain the swamp” section above) called the Nuclear Regulatory Committee that is holding us back significantly on fully embracing nuclear energy at a time when America could be at the forefront of nuclear.

Appreciate the back and forth!

 

[Rock]

Drudge hitting him.

 

[EyeballKid]

Draining the swamp: major candidates to be cut significantly are FBI, IRS, ATF, Department of Ed, and I’m sure there are a ton of others. The bloat is just absurd and this is an area where I think Ramaswamy was really on the right track even if he sometimes went a little bit too far - I think he was talking about 75% reductions or similar and maybe that’s possible (idk), but certainly could trim some serious fat from all of these. All the money spent on paying the bureaucrats in the department of education should be rerouted to teachers on the front lines.

Merit: I agree that socioeconomic status should be what is considered for college admissions etc, and not race or gender. A lot of conservatives like me would support factoring in socioeconomic status because that is actually targeting the right people, whereas discriminating based on race goes against enriching America is supposed to stand for.

Immigration: all I’ll add here is that the reason the bill was tanked was twofold. First, Trump wanted this to be an issue Biden had to explain during the campaign. In his view, after four years of Biden and Harris letting the border crisis rage, he wasn’t in the mood to throw them a lifeline and let them pass bipartisan legislation in an election year that would mitigate Biden/Harris’s #1 weakest area from their administration. That’s just politics but I admit that’s why Republicans like Trump were happy to punt this issue to 2025. The other reason is because that bill did have some compromise in it that Republicans don’t like (Ukraine support was tied together with illegal immigration bill, right?) and they feel like if Trump wins in November, they can get what they want on immigration through Trump executive order without having to make the concessions that were in the bill.

War: no boots on the ground, but the Afghanistan withdrawal was a total clusterfuck and the situations in Ukraine and Gaza are extremely concerning to everyone. The temperature overseas in terms of wars feels a lot less stable right now than it did under Trump.

Fair share: good stats on NATO defense spending. That seems to be moving in the right direction and it needs to. Other G7 countries at a minimum need to be paying their fair share.

Transgender: this is one we’ll just have to disagree on.

Energy: I put this one last because this is the one I’m probably least educated on so I’ll admit that. But as an example, we have an entire agency (see “drain the swamp” section above) called the Nuclear Regulatory Committee that is holding us back significantly on fully embracing nuclear energy at a time when America could be at the forefront of nuclear.

Appreciate the back and forth!

regarding the immigration bill—Republicans DEMANDED that the immigration bill be tied to funding for Ukraine/Israel.

When they got what they wanted, they did a 180 (at Trump’s insistence) and moaned that they wanted separate bills.

 

[UNCatTech]

If I need a summary of the press conference, I’m not going to start at the beginning and watch for 5-10 mins until I get bored of it. In 5-10 mins I can get all the highlights and lowlights and be much more efficient with my time

There really are no high lights, only low lights. And you really don't need to watch, you probably have the word salad memorized by now, don't you?

 

[1moretimeagain]

“Energy: I put this one last because this is the one I’m probably least educated on so I’ll admit that. But as an example, we have an entire agency (see “drain the swamp” section above) called the Nuclear Regulatory Committee that is holding us back significantly on fully embracing nuclear energy at a time when America could be at the forefront of nuclear.”

Did this not come up during the 4 years Trump spent in office? If he was going to do something about it, seems like ample time to have made that happen. I assume it’s not something he’s interested in.

 

[sringwal]

Off the top of my head:

-Self-governance rather than government dependence. Significantly cut the fat in various governmental agencies
-Merit based society with EQUALITY (i.e equal opportunity), instead of DEI/affirmative action/equity-based (i.e. equal outcomes) society
-Secure the southern border. To enter the country you must receive consent, and consent is based on people who will be productive members of society and share American values.
-No senseless wars
-America first. Make our allies pay their fair share in our alliances.
-Ban gender “care” for minors
-Make the USA the dominant energy producer in the world

Tell me what you would cut that would get you to even 25%

 

[UNCatTech]

Off the top of my head:

-Self-governance rather than government dependence. Significantly cut the fat in various governmental agencies
-Merit based society with EQUALITY (i.e equal opportunity), instead of DEI/affirmative action/equity-based (i.e. equal outcomes) society
-Secure the southern border. To enter the country you must receive consent, and consent is based on people who will be productive members of society and share American values.
-No senseless wars
-America first. Make our allies pay their fair share in our alliances.
-Ban gender “care” for minors
-Make the USA the dominant energy producer in the world

By "Self-Governance" do you mean like being able to control your own medical needs?
Cut various agencies, maybe we can cut the ones that ensure our jobs are safe? Or the ones that ensure we don't have cough medicine made with propylene glycol?
I'm in agreement with a comprehensive border/immigration policy, that works for refuges as well as the workers that we need.
What war are we in?
Oh, so you're not really for freedom, you want the government making the choices that a parent and doctor should be making, I see. Why did you lie about self-governance?
And by your last statement, I assume that you mean stop trying to save the planet and go back to the 1950's fossil fuels agenda?

 

[8992Tiger]

The GOP electorate has been ALL-IN for Trump since about March 2016.

Yep. That is when I tapped out.

 

[UNCatTech]

I effing love a good policy debate! Been looking for one for a while. (And plus you know I'm not remotely trying to get you to change your mind about who you're voting for).

-I agree in theory with the idea of smaller government, less federal spending, creating more efficiency and lest waste in government, etc. Which governmental agencies do you think could use "trimming"? I don't really know, myself. I'm sure there is plenty of administrative bloat in the government but I don't know enough about (1) how much there actually is, (2) where the bloat resides, and (3) which bloated agencies should be trimmed without negatively impacting the government's ability to function efficiently. Wha are your thoughts? Not a 'gotcha' question or anything- I genuinely don't know, myself, and would love to hear your thoughts.

-Agree in principle with the idea of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. I do think we are making good progress on that front with the Supreme Court's decision last summer to eliminate race-based affirmative action admissions policies. I think that socioeconomic and geographical status is a much better criterion for college admission consideration than race, gender, etc. I also think that a lot of companies are retooling their idea of what DEI should mean and how it should be practiced.

-What would you propose for securing the southern border differently than what is being done now? I personally think it's impractical, not to mention logistically impossible, to physically secure the entire border with fences, walls, etc. I'd love to get your thoughts on the GOP tanking their own comprehensive immigration reform and border security bill at the behest of their presidential nominee; a bill that was, objectively, one of the very best and toughest of its kind in generations; one that was created by a very conservative Republican Senator from a very Republican state and had bi-partisan support (not to mention a ton of concessions by the Democrats). I am a firm believer that we should spend a disproportionate amount of money and resources to both secure the southern border AND reform our current system of immigration to be more efficient, more effective, more expedient, and more humane. I think that we should invest in adding more border security personnel, more asylum processing officers, more immigration judges/officials, and more drug enforcement personnel. I think that we should invest in technologically securing the border with radar, imaging, ground sensors, facial recognition tech, surveillance drones, etc. which I think would be a lot more effective than trying to build walls and fences that are easily scaled/tunneled.

-We are currently not directly involved in any war//there are no U.S. boots on the ground in combat situations for the first time in almost two-and-a-half decades. Regardless of partisan affiliation or ideology, that's laudable IMO.

-As of 2024, 23 of our NATO allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defense, compared to only three of our NATO allies in 2014. Over the past decade, our European NATO allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defense, from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, where they are currently investing a combined total of more than $430 billion (USD) in defense spending. I credit all three of the most recent U.S. presidential administrations for that.

-Definite disagreement from me on banning gender affirming care for minors. I don't think that is the government's place, under any circumstance. I think that it is strictly between parents, their children, and their physicians. Research shows that early gender-affirming care can improve mental health, increase confidence, and help youth focus on social transitions to have comparable outcomes to their peers. Now, I'm not sure that anyone should be able to receive any kind of surgery or series of procedures that alters a person's physical appearance and sexual characteristics to align with their gender identity, until they are at least 18-years of age. But I don't feel that it's my place, the government's place, or anyone's place to dictate personal medical choices for other people. That's the old-school, small government, life and let live, personal freedoms and liberties conservative in me.

-The U.S., under the current administration, is producing more energy domestically than at any other time in the history of our country. Not sure what more we could do there but certainly open to learning more about what we could or should do differently. What are your thoughts?

I don't think that the government is as bloated as the pubs want everyone to think it is.

How can anyone preach efficiencies and want what has been called the least effective border protection, a wall?

 

[UNCatTech]

“Energy: I put this one last because this is the one I’m probably least educated on so I’ll admit that. But as an example, we have an entire agency (see “drain the swamp” section above) called the Nuclear Regulatory Committee that is holding us back significantly on fully embracing nuclear energy at a time when America could be at the forefront of nuclear.”

Did this not come up during the 4 years Trump spent in office? If he was going to do something about it, seems like ample time to have made that happen. I assume it’s not something he’s interested in.

Your second statement is the key, he had 4 years, what makes anyone thing he will get anything more done if given 4 more years?
Kamala is new and we need someone with newer better ideas.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

I hope you are trolling with this. It has been explained to you many, many times that our allies ALREADY pay their fair share. It is not "America First" to antagonize allies. That's the opposite of America First.

As you well know, everyone admitted to the country does receive consent. You keep getting hung up on that little fact. I mean, for real man, read about how this stuff works. I promise you can understand.

There is no fat in government agencies. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the GOP has been running on that talking point for literally 40 years. Whatever fat remains (and there's far, far less than you think) is not going away. Since 1980, when cutting the fat became a big GOP talking point, the GOP has controlled the presidency for 24 years. If you didn't cut the fat then, you are never going to cut it. It's almost as if the GOP doesn't ever want to solve the "problems" they identify, because they are too busy running for office on the same threats, decade after decade.

And finally, though again I am hoping you are trolling, this bit about gender "care" is so tiring. In what universe are you more qualified to determine what is good for minors than the vast majority of medical doctors? My wife sees trans kids every week. It is so repulsive to see some bean counter -- I mean, literally, you are an accountant, right? -- thinking he knows more than MDs.

I already responded to CFord in greater detail above but one small thing in your post that needs to be addressed.

I know you seemingly define everything based on your career and that you like to remind everyone you are a lawyer every chance you get. And you make it clear every time you post that you always think you’re smarter than the other poster you’re addressing. But this issue is a moral/common sense issue and has nothing to do with occupation.

In other words, it’s not the CPA/Corporate Controller/Accountant in me that has an opinion on gender “care” for minors and whether that’s a good thing to provide them with. It’s the parent in me. Huge distinction as almost all of my worldview is seen through the lens of parent and specifically the world I’ll eventually be leaving to my kids.

Teenage kids aren’t mature enough to make such life-altering, irreversible decisions related to puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries. And just because they have a parent or doctor who may agree to go down that road with them doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for them to make that decision before they reach adulthood. I know this is a new and trendy thing but there isn’t a lot of hard research that has been done on the side effects of these things yet - side effects including loss of fertility for (biological) women, loss of bone density after hormone treatments, etc. Frankly I think it’s borderline child abuse to perform these type of surgeries on minors whose brains aren’t even close to fully developed.