Says the message board drunk, lol.
Were you fine more in favor of previous SecDefs who had served in the military, or is this a new thing for you?
Is DEI a big problem in the military and why?
Nope. Hearings rarely change anyone's minds in my recollection.Did you watch the hearing? yes or no.
I don't know why you need to let politicians and columnists speak for you.
Hegseth is full of and he knows it. Pete Hegseth knows who he is and what he was picked to do.SLOTKIN: Do you agree that there are some orders that could be given by the commander in chief that could violate the US Cons ution?HEGSETH: I reject the premise that President Trump is gonna be giving illegal orders
Presidents like Trump are made to give illegal orders, defense secretaries like Hegseth are designed to carry them out.
I reckon the USA is in a pre-revolutionary state, but maybe it won't stay that way very long. Maybe Trump will dominate and trample this time, with the eager assistance of Pete Hegseth and others in government in subduing insidious internal enemies and loud-mouthed leftists.
What starts as a governmental political purge, will soon become a broader social purge at the hands of a vindictive government.
...
God willing and Trump doesn't go soft on me...anything is possible.
You didn't watch the hearing and you refuse to read an article I posted where Hegseth lays out his case for the military. The only arguments I've seen you make against Hegseth have come from an anonymously sourced, and debunked Jane Meyer article, you're a ing clown lol.
And yes DEI is a problem in the military as it puts our troops at further risk on the battlefield.
At the forefront of Hegseth’s efforts are two vital positions that have stirred controversy: excluding women from direct ground combat roles and eliminating transgender troops from military service. These are not decisions made lightly or ideologically—they reflect a focus on military effectiveness and readiness, issues that must be examined through the lens of logic, historical precedent, and necessity, rather than emotion or political correctness.
Women in Combat: A Realistic Assessment
To argue that women should be excluded from direct combat is not, as critics claim, an assertion of their lack of bravery or capability. No rational person would deny the for ude of women in uniform. The issue at hand is about the average physical limitations and the high-stakes dynamics that direct ground combat necessitates. Take, for example, the physical standards of elite units such as the Marine Corps Infantry or the Army Rangers. Studies and fitness assessments over decades confirm what biology textbooks have said all along—the average female body is simply less adapted to the extreme rigors of front-line combat than the male physique. This is not chauvinism; it is physiology.
If you place individuals in a combat scenario who are unable to maintain a uniform standard of physical prowess—lifting, running, carrying over extended distances—you undermine not just that individual's effectiveness, but the entire unit's cohesion. Recent trials conducted by both the Marine Corps and Army showed that mixed-gender units consistently underperformed compared to all-male units in simulated combat exercises. For instance, the Marine Corps Integrated Task Force study found that all-male units outperformed mixed-gender units in 69% of combat-related tasks, with mixed-gender units being slower and less accurate in tactical tasks. In 2015, the Marine Corps reported that units with women moved 8% more slowly and had greater difficulty completing physically demanding tasks compared to their all-male counterparts. The mission must come before political correctness, and it must come before social experiments. These findings are not about individual capabilities but about ensuring the highest possible level of combat readiness and minimizing any unnecessary risks. Secretary Hegseth’s approach is not a critique of women’s abilities in general, but rather a matter of statistical reality—the stakes in war demand that we give our service members every possible advantage.
Beyond physical standards, there's also the need for undistracted cohesion in combat units. Tight-knit groups that are asked to act as one body under threat of death should have no reason for interpersonal friction or any potential distraction that would compromise that mission. Critics may call this a stereotype, but we have seen the catastrophic consequences when favoritism or sexual relationships enter a combat setting. War, unfortunately, cannot make allowances for biology and emotions; it needs its warriors singularly focused on each other and on the enemy.
Medical and Readiness Issues with Transgender Troops
Equally pressing is the discussion around transgender troops in the military, another of Secretary Hegseth’s focal points. The military's mission is defined by one central premise—to close with and destroy the enemy. To do this effectively, we must ensure that every service member is fully deployable without medical complications. However, the reality of many transgender individuals is one of unique medical requirements. Gender reassignment surgeries, hormone therapies, and the mental health support frequently required present logistical challenges that, in the fog of war, could be disastrous. The primary obligation of our military is readiness, not the accommodation of personal lifestyles or medical dependencies.
Consider the medical readiness requirements set forth by the Department of Defense. Transgender individuals undergoing hormone treatments, for instance, need consistent access to medication. Imagine a combat unit deep in the Afghan mountains—can the supply chain guarantee delivery of medication under such cir stances, and at what cost to unit effectiveness and logistics? The answer, simply put, is no. Furthermore, from 2016-2019, according to Pentagon data, the medical care for transgender troops cost $8 million—funds that could have been better used for training, equipment, or other readiness-related expenditures.
The military needs clear-cut, universally applied policies—standards that every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine can meet without exception. Every exemption, every special requirement, adds another layer of complexity, an additional burden that undermines the chain of command and sows confusion in units that must otherwise act as a well-oiled machine. In a foxhole, there is no room for inconsistency or exceptions.
Defending the Foundations of Unit Cohesion
Unit cohesion has been an essential element of effective military forces since the dawn of warfare. From Caesar's legions to the modern-day Marine Corps, elite combat units thrive on uniformity and shared hardship, forged in both training and battlefield adversity. Social experiments—whether pushing for the inclusion of women in roles for which they are, statistically speaking, less prepared, or integrating individuals undergoing complex medical transitions—introduce variables that can only diminish cohesion, and with it, combat effectiveness.
Transgender policy advocates might argue that integration enriches military diversity. However, Secretary Hegseth’s policies reflect the grim reality that diversity in war is not about the outward appearances or self-identifications of individual troops. True diversity in the ranks comes from a range of military skills—expertise in artillery, engineering, intelligence, or logistics—skills that contribute tangibly to a mission’s success. What does not contribute is a layered administrative burden driven by the need to accommodate individuals who require exceptions and continuous medical monitoring.
Even historically, armies that have been the most effective have been those that emphasized cohesion, unity, and adaptability, rather than those which became bogged down in bureaucratic accommodations. The Roman legions, the British Redcoats, and yes, our own Greatest Generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy—these forces operated under clear, universally enforced standards, and were able to field the most cohesive and lethal units because they did not compromise effectiveness for the sake of inclusivity.
A Pragmatic, Not Ideological, Stance
The bottom line is that the military is not a social club; it is a fighting force designed to close with and destroy the enemy. Pete Hegseth’s proposed policies prioritize this basic truth, understanding that inclusivity cannot come at the cost of lethality and readiness. Secretary Hegseth’s position is, in truth, pragmatic—he is not seeking to discriminate, but to preserve the fighting edge that defines our military power.
As conservatives, we often invoke Reagan’s wisdom: “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally.” Even when members of our own party advocate policies that appear to appease the cultural zeitgeist at the cost of our armed forces' effectiveness, we remain aligned on the common principles of national defense, freedom, and American exceptionalism. We must stay steadfast in our commitment to supporting leaders like Pete Hegseth, who unapologetically confront the hard truths that accompany military readiness and national security.
Let there be no doubt—Secretary Pete Hegseth's approach is a return to sanity. It is a realignment of military priorities away from the delusions of social progressivism and back to what matters most: victory, survival, and the absolute superiority of American fighting forces.
https://x.com/amuse/status/1878937059466924485
I'm not a nominee for SECDEF
You're a disingenuous chicken . Why didn't you post the entirety of that exchange? It ends with Hegseth saying he would never carry out an order that violated the US cons ution.
How many women are in combat infantry?
How many transgendered people needing hormone therapy?
Let's quantify your biggest problems.
But does he think that having the army shoot protestors is something that violates the cons ution?
You asked why DEI is a problem in the military and were given a solid answer. Another ing text wall? lol, you're a ing clown.
I didn't see any actual studies. If a tweet is good enough for any argument I can probably find "solid" ones too.
But give me a solid answer here:
How many women are in combat infantry?
How many transgendered people needing hormone therapy are in combat infantry?
Let's quantify your biggest problems.
3,800
Enough to spend almost $3 million per year in medical care.
of course one would say so under oath
Do you have Spurs Homer on ignore? It's clear why I posted that tweet in response to him.
During his Tuesday Senate confirmation hearing, Pete Hegseth provided his best case yet on why he’s the perfect man to be President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary.
Speaking before the Armed Services Committee, the Army veteran noted how the “the primary charge” given to him by Trump was to “bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense.” He subsequently detailed how he intends to make the Pentagon into an agency “laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness.”
“The Defense Department under Donald Trump will achieve Peace Through Strength. And in pursuing these America First national security goals, we will remain patriotically a-political and stridently Cons utional,” Hegseth said. “Unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. We are not Republicans or Democrats — we are American warriors. Our standards will be high, and they will be equal (not equitable, that is a very different word).”
Since coming to power nearly four years ago, the Biden-Harris Pentagon has made implementing neo-Marxist ideologies such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) a top priority. These policies have undermined military readiness and contributed to the service’s ongoing recruiting crisis.
Hegseth stressed that the Defense Department must “make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system, every pilot is fully qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership based purely on performance, readiness, and merit.” He further noted how, “Leaders — at all levels — will be held accountable,” and that “warfighting and lethality — and the readiness of the troops and their families — will be our only focus.”
“That has been my focus ever since I first put on the uniform as a young Army ROTC cadet at Princeton University in 2001,” Hegseth said. “I joined the military because I love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. I served with incredible Americans in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and in the streets of Washington, DC — many of which are here today. This includes enlisted soldiers I helped become American citizens, and Muslim allies I helped immigrate from Iraq and Afghanistan. And when I took off the uniform, my mission never stopped.”
The former Fox News host described the three-prong approach he and Trump will take to restore lethality and efficiency to the military. Specifically, he noted that the incoming administration will focus on bringing back the military’s “warrior ethos,” rebuilding the service’s broken infrastructure, and reestablishing “deterrence” to create peace on the world stage.
Hegseth also responded to Democrat allegations that he’s not “qualified” to serve as defense secretary. The Army veteran acknowledged that he doesn’t “have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years,” but noted, “we’ve repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’ — whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives — and where has it gotten us?”
President-elect Trump “believes, and I humbly agree, that it’s time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives,” Hegseth said.
The Army veteran reaffirmed that his “only special interest is [America’s] warfighter[s], [d]eterring wars, and if called upon, winning wars — by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight.” He further emphasized the importance of the military letting its troops “win” and then “bring[ing] them home.”
“Like many of my generation, I’ve been there. I’ve led troops in combat, been on patrol
for days, pulled a trigger downrange, heard bullets whiz by, flex-cuffed insurgents, called
in close air support, led medevacs, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies, and knelt before a battlefield cross,” Hegseth said. “[T]his is not academic for me; this is my life. I led then, and I will lead now.”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/14...nse-secretary/
I like Pete
Are they not qualified now? You guys are such suckers.
Looks are really that important to you.
Last edited by Blake; 01-14-2025 at 06:43 PM.
Your only argument so far against him has been from an anonymously sourced Jane Meyer article that was torn apart by verified sources who put their name on the record. I'm still waiting for you to find "solid" ones. Chop chop.
Where did you get this number?
According to this, it's more like 1500
https://apnews.com/article/women-com...87d8c31ff59118
Are other people requiring regular treatments or medicines also excluded from combat infantry roles?Enough to spend almost $3 million per year in medical care.
I'll just trust his mom pre-nomination.
Lol why should I believe that guy?
The white men are here to lead us into this new era of complete competency.
Lol "torn apart by verified sources"
Sorry but you don't have any la ude here with that, pizza gate
we'd be better off with DEI hires, tbh
intellectually disqualified, ideologically disqualified, and temperamentally disqualified, never mind boot lickers
Dems are trying to find a white man to save the party
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/vice-is-a-moatIn the Trumpified world of Republican politics, vice has become a moat. If a figure is a bad enough person, it inspires fanatical loyalty in Republican voters and helps protect them from challenges.
Tim [Miller] wrote about “vice signaling” four years ago and it has stuck with me ever since.
Jesus telling the Pharisees that acts were more important than words somehow became Cheeto Jesus telling the Twitterati that acts and words were both bad—LOSERS!—and the righteous man was really the one who had no compunction about his cruelty.
Saying you wanted to save the world was out. Actually trying to save the world was double-out. The only thing people admired anymore was the balls on the guy who wanted to watch the world burn.
The term [vice signaling], popularized by Jane Coaston, refers to people who now gleefully portray themselves publicly as amoral or immoral in order to demonstrate some sort of strength or sophistication. . . .
How did we get here? Because of the corrupting influence of Trumpism.
If we were talking about President Mitt Romney, there is no way—none, at all—that Brit Hume would be working overtime to vice signal. He would be rightly praising the president's model behavior and discretion. We know this to be true. Instead we have a Republican president who is—just objectively—a man of utterly irredeemable personal character. And so, in order to justify their continued enabling of him, people such as Hume begin to not just ignore virtue, but bow toward vice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
