I'm for an Article 5 convention

Gaetz and Adam Schiff have the most punchable faces in Congress and are practically opposite sides of the same "look at me/all about me" coin. I detest both of them.

As I stated in one of my previous posts on Gaetz: "In a political world filled with selfish, self-serving azzholes - Gaetz has distinguished himself as an especially unlikeable turd. He was willing to shid on all the other Republicans in the House in order to settle a personal vendetta. Screw that guy - I'm glad he's going to be out of the House and probably won't be confirmed."

Regarding Hegseth.... I've not finished his book so I'm still making my way through it. However, based on what I have read and listened to in his more in depth discussions of the military (not 2 minute soundbites) - I'm largely in agreement with his take. His experiences that have formed his opinions very much mirror my own. Most of what Hegseth is saying speaks to the very same things I have witnessed in the military and hear from other vets to include some friends of mine still on active duty.

Hegseth speaks from a troop level that is too often silenced by the military public relations political caste (the Pentagon's Military and Civilian leaders) who are more interested in pleasing their political master's ideological agendas in the furtherance of their own careers. At the troop level a focus on what sounds nice in a public speech like "diversity is our strength" is quickly found to be irrelevant on the battlefield and the Pentagon forced focus on this tripe has gotten in the way of the things that actually do matter on the battlefield like physical ability, competence, skill and warrior ethos.

I would reference you to Hegseth's interview with Shawn Ryan where he and Ryan discuss these "war crimes" cases. The facts of these cases are not necessarily as one sided as has been presented to the public through the Pentagon's controlled mouthpieces. As a double combat vet myself I will just say this... There were routine moral dilemmas that resulted in things that your grandfather's did in WWII that were borne from battlefield necessity. Had some of today's political flag officers been around in our grandfather's time, they would have branded many of our grandfathers "war criminals" for some of their actions. War puts trigger pullers in some very bad situations where the moral choice has a bad outcome no matter the action taken. Don't get me wrong I most definitely believe in war crimes - the Russian military is notorious for it where they institutionalize rape and theft.

Regarding the paying to go away issue... IMO, paying an accusation to "go away" or sign an NDA is not always the equivalent of an admission of guilt. Put yourself in Hegseth's shoes... His position as a conservative paid broadcast commentator could be put in jeopardy from just a public accusation of sexual assault and the inevitable circus that would surround such a thing from most of the non-conservative media looking to get his scalp. We like to think that merely claiming ones innocence to such an accusation would be enough to keep their reputation/employment intact but we know all too well that this is not the case in our modern world where the media routinely turns an accusation into a guilty verdict.

So in Hegseth's case (where he contends his innocence) even if there is no proof that a sexual assault happened or that an investigation was conducted where he was not charged with wrongdoing - there was still a significant risk that his employer would find it easier to fire him instead of dealing with the inevitable outrage and negative publicity that always accompany these things. That being the case, I don't think it is unusual for some public figures to simply pay for NDA's to make these issues go away even when the accused is innocent and has not committed a crime.

Is it right to me pay for an accusers silence - even for an accusation I know to be not true?? I don't know - I've never been in that situation. But I would not necessarily make a connection between paying for an NDA as being an admission of guilt.

tabbyplague®

Campus Hero [13999]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 5983

Joined: 2004

Once again - have you listened to Hegseth's complete take on women in combat??

Nov 17, 2024, 7:34 PM

It's not the blanket "he doesn't want women in combat" that most are clutching their pearls over. His take is much more nuanced than the drive-by medias outrage and I happen to agree with Hegseth's take. Hegseth disagrees with women being in certain units - namely Infantry units from Battalion and below and Spec Ops units. Women can still serve in combat zones but do so in branches and combat units that are in general/direct support to these "tip of the spear" formations. Women would still be in combat but they wouldn't be the "door kickers" and in the fighting units moving to contact. Hegseth has said he has no issues with women flying (helicopter, fighter jets etc...) or other combat jobs that they are physically capable of doing in large numbers without lowering the standards.

There are just certain battlefield realities with serving in these kinds of units (Infantry and Spec Ops) that most people truly don't understand. It's just a fact that there are physiological differences between male and female where a female is greatly disadvantaged to physically perform the required tasks of these units. Everything from the sheer weight of the packs they have to carry to the speed at which they must move to upper body strength to lift and hold objects and soldiers over their shoulders. Furthermore for these units - there is no such thing as privacy in combat. It simply would be impossible to have any kinds of separate "accommodation" for the differences between boys and girls. People who have spent time in the grunt units in combat understand this - it ain't Politically Correct but it is the truth.

Now - I'm not going to pretend that there aren't some females out there that couldn't genuinely ruck and fight just as well as any other "grunt". But it's just a fact that the numbers of females that can will be exceedingly low compared to the male population. At some point we have to ask - how do we get the most lethality for our defense bucks and what is the cost to lethality by catering to getting women in these maneuver units? Sadly the only branch that looked at the performance was the Marines - the others services were more interested in finding whatever new "standard" they could institute that would allow women in these direct combat units. What the Marines found was not good but of course - this was all summarily ignored in favor of achieving some social equality agenda...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-in-marines-infantry-experiment/

Thanks to your father for his service. I'm a retired Army Colonel (Navy Captain equivalent). I was 27 years active duty Army. I commanded everything from a Platoon (all male unit) to a Battalion (men and women) and did lots of deployments including 2 combat tours. I served in everything from Infantry units to Infantry Division HQs to the Strategic Combatant Commands (USSOUTHCOM and USSTRATCOM). I've lived at all levels from the foxhole to the high tech Operations Centers to walking the halls of the Pentagon. I do have a healthy respect for women in the service - my older sister was one of them in the Navy. Some of the women I worked with were among the most amazing leaders I have ever seen. However, the realities of combat at the troop level are unforgiving and do not care about political correctness and social experiments. Lethality and violence of action is what matters - Pete Hegseth understands this and that is why I agree with most of his positions I have heard/read to date.

Qualifications.... I don't know if Hegseth is qualified from a strategic vision perspective with an ability to take on the Pentagon behemoth (my biggest concern). But I have also learned that in the Corporate Media and DC world "qualifications" is code for DC insider who will go along with the status quo. The status quo kinds of leadership is killing our military and we need real change and not the typical do nothing "DC change" we hear from insiders and politicos.

I do know that our credentialed elitist class - the so called "qualified" people have failed us more times than I can count. I include Rumsfeld, Carter, and especially the current SECDEF - Austin among them (and I knew Austin when he was a Brigade Commander in the 82nd). At this point - I really don't think Hegseth could do much worse than what has been going on. But I do see he has one thing going for him that I've not seen in any of his predecessors - he is a true Pentagon outsider that has a perfect vision of the troop level issues. Hegseth is not a pawn of the Military Industrial Complex system nor is he part of the insider Pentagon club of which both types are incapable of course correcting the current shape of our military. To be sure - we might lose a war if our Strategic position is wobbly but we are guaranteed to lose a war if the troop level is messed up and remains where it is right now.

So I say - put Hegseth through the confirmation process and see how he handles it. But focus it on his policy ideas and abilities not this sideshow BS of tattoos and unproven misconduct accusations. He certainly can't be any worse than Chuck Hagel was during his confirmation hearing...

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Kamala would have fixed this.

Trump ran up a pile of debt in his first term....

Re: Trump ran up a pile of debt in his first term....

Moar TDS***

Re: Trump ran up a pile of debt in his first term....

Where did I say I was a conservative?....

Yes, let's eliminate redundant departments by creating a new department

You are blinded by your hate

I'm curious which you think is the "knows government and not business"

GOOD! "Experience in Government" grifting is the omnipresent problem.

Why would you expect him to cut any spending?

You know who can fix this?

Re: You know who can fix this?

Matt Gaetz wasn't charged with a crime.

I don't like Matt Gaetz and hope his nomination gets crushed.

He was deemed an "extremist" by the Army and men in his own unit

I've got to tell you - just because people are in the military doesn't mean they

Time out, you're in/were in the military and think that Hegseth

Once again - have you listened to Hegseth's complete take on women in combat??

Re: Once again - have you listened to Hegseth's complete take on women in combat??

If you feel I'm discrediting anyone's service then you completely missed

You are giving Hegseth far more credit than what you're writing here.

Re: You are giving Hegseth far more credit than what you're writing here.

Re: You are giving Hegseth far more credit than what you're writing here.

Re: You are giving Hegseth far more credit than what you're writing here.

I think there's a bigger problem with Hegseth

Re: Time out, you're in/were in the military and think that Hegseth

Quiet, the adults are talking.

Re: You know who can fix this?

Go pound some more sand.***

Oh did he strike a nerve for you?***

Re: Oh did he strike a nerve for you?***

Yall never learn. Nobody cares about your lies.***

Back to the topic of the DoD failing 7 straight audits. For you business folks

Re: Back to the topic of the DoD failing 7 straight audits. For you business folks

Decades worth... It is a perpetual grift. They just move the chairs around.***

Re: Decades worth... It is a perpetual grift. They just move the chairs around.***

TigerBoard POTD