Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.

Strong Men Armed said:

---

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.

---

This is a fever dream.

The Army is not going to just abandon posse comitatus because MSNBC thinks Trump wants to turn the military into Brownshirts.

I am not a big fan of Presidents culling generals based on perceived political affinities -- but don't kid yourself that this has not already been happening.

Current or potential GOs got passed over if they opposed:

- Mandatory DEI curricula
- integrating women in combat arms, or promoting gender neutral standards to do so
- the declassification of gender dysphoria as a medically disqualifying condition (and all that led to)
- Manipulation of promotion and command selection lists based on desired sex and ethnicity outcomes

I'm not talking about publicly -- I'm talking about internal discussions over pros and cons and base principles. They may not have been fired, but they were most certainly passed over at the flag grades -- the political level of the Army.

And the current crop picks the future crop.

The Army and USMC did not open up the combat arms to women because it improved the effectiveness of the force, or to widen the recruiting pool -- it was 100% because of perceived inequity, because those branches produce the highest percentage of senior officers, and the Service Chiefs.

Frankly, if this is the decision civilian leaders believe was important as a civil rights issue, then roger that -- Generals salute and move out.

But don't gaslight the public that it improved our readiness or capability, or not negatively affected morale and cohesion.

And now the decision has been made, and the results are being seen -- and any officer openly questioning the utility of women in combat arms, the lack of gender neutral standards, or trans integration today will 100% see the end of their career as a result.

Is this OK?

Strong Men Armed said:

---

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.

---

This thread is probably veering into the Politics board territory now, so I don't want to go too far.

But a President (via his SecDef) absolutely has the authority to eliminate the social justice/equity personnel policies that previous administrations established through executive fiat.

And GOs unwilling to accept and support these changes in policy should be asked (told) to retire. The same as what happened to those who opposed them in the first place.

And those actions -- whether you agree with them or not -- do not equate to turning the military into a personality cult to destroy democracy.

Strong Men Armed said:

---

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.

He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.

Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.

---

(hope you don't mind I added some line breaks to your original message for clarity)

Serious question - were you high when you wrote that?

Or is my sarcasm meter just completely broken?

(I know my gaydar is broken but they don't make parts for it anymore and I refuse to upgrade to a newer model)

LoL.

You seriously need to turn off cable news.

Quote:

---

He has talked openly about declaring martial law and sending in the troops.

---

That is nonsense.

He got asked if he would consider using the military (ie, National Guard) if there was massive civil unrest after the election/inauguration. And he said he would consider it.

As would ANY President if rioting mobs were burning down DC.

Do you think that is going to happen? If so, what should a President do? Let it burn?

This is political to a degree. However it can be discussed by adults in an adult manner.

Right now, two posters are making this like the Politics board, by throwing out unsubstantiated claims that aren't even addressing the OP.

Allegations that were found baseless, but the accusation is all that matters, apparently

Strong Men Armed said:

---

Pretty sure that the end game for Trump in his selection of a SecDef and in weeding out "disloyal" flag officers is to insure that he can use the military to crush dissent whenever he wants.
He'll have his first chance when women have a mass protest at the Lincoln Memorial/Reflection Pool in Washington over abortion/reproductive rights.
Hoping that we don't have flag officers willing to sic the troops on the women exercising their First Amendment rights.

---

So dramatic

Lol. Thanks. Needed the laugh

First things first. Military Service, or lack thereof, has no bearing on one's Qualifications to be SecDef.
Before he contacted polio, FDR was SecNav.

But. Hegseth has way too much baggage. And he's being disingenuous at best about his Guard experience as it relates to his tattoos. He claims that the reason he was barred from the Inauguration Day 2021 Duty was his "Jerusalem Cross" tattoo that he sports on his upper chest. J.D. Vance claims that this is an example of "Anti-Catholic Bigotry." huh? Hegseth isn't even Catholic, He's an Evangelical. I was born and raised Catholic as was my wife. I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. I was never around any Protestants on a daily basis until my fish year in the Corps. I never saw a Jerusalem Cross, or even heard of it until a few days ago, with this story. Ditto my wife, 16 years of Catholic schooling. She never saw that, didn't even know what it was when I showed it to her.

What Hegseth doesn't tell us? It's the "Deus Vult" tattoo on his bicep, not the Jerusalem Cross, that makes him so nuclear. A battle cry from the Crusades, "God Wills It" in Latin. ( I had to study 2 years of Latin.). That phrase and tattoo has been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. A few years ago, a gunman shot up 2 Mosques in New Zealand. He killed 49 people. That phrase was prominent in his Manifesto. At Charlottsville (Good people on both sides!) it was displayed on at least one flag.

Okay, maybe Hegseth didn't know about that. WRONG! No excuse. He attended Princeton, then Harvard. He's no dummy. And as a Military Officer, he had an obligation to know. The military has a clear policy about offensive tattoos.

That is a Non-Starter. Right then and there.

There's more. Hegseth says he applied for a position with the New York State Guard. He was not accepted. He claims that it was because of his high profile right wing politics, that the NY Guard was, of course, too "Woke" (Ever the Victim). The NY Guard said that they didn't have a slot for someone of his rank at the time he applied. Hey, that happens all the time. He claimed that Democratic NY Gov. Cuomo was instrumental in his rejection by the NY Guard. Cuomo's office was contacted.. Cuomo stated that he never even knew of Hegseth until the last few days.

Is being disingenuous a reason why he is unfit to serve as SecDef? No.

Is sporting a Neo-Nazi tattoo a reason he is unfit? Absolutely. Non-Starter.

Source. Washington Post Article Nov. 16, 2024.

Lots if things "get reported."

Duke lacrosse were gang rapists... until the weren't.

Kavanaugh was a rapist in college, until he actually wasn't.

Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian plant until it absolutely wasn't.

See the trend? What's disingenuous is all of the pearl clutching and equivocation.

The Jerusalem Cross has ben a thing for centuries. Developed by the crusaders, who were.... gasp... Catholic.

If your Catholic school/church doesn't teach history, you probably need to revisit their curriculum because it is clearly lacking. Maybe they don't teach crusades in the same way that Germany doesnt teach anything meaningful about WWII.

Last, just because some bigotted organization attempts to co-opt an ancient / age-old tradition (or Latin phrase), it does not invalidate the actual tradition/phrase's historical value or it's real usefulness.

Its really no differnt than the USMA cadets who were the subjects of a witch hunt for thowing the "OK" sign - which has been a middle school prank for decades - because someone tried to tie it to a white power movement.

I'm have no real opinion on Hegseth, but I absolutely have an opinion on BS sattements that are either false, intended to obfuscate, or condemn anyone without due process.

Edit - typos

So all this went down in 2017.

In 2017, he was married to wife 2, knocked up soon-to-be wife 3 (while still married to wife 2), and had a "relationship" with this other chick that required him to write a sizable check.

Real quality guy. Even without proof of rape.

rackmonster said:

---

First things first. Military Service, or lack thereof, has no bearing on one's Qualifications to be SecDef.
Before he contacted polio, FDR was SecNav.

But. Hegseth has way too much baggage. And he's being disingenuous at best about his Guard experience as it relates to his tattoos. He claims that the reason he was barred from the Inauguration Day 2021 Duty was his "Jerusalem Cross" tattoo that he sports on his upper chest. J.D. Vance claims that this is an example of "Anti-Catholic Bigotry." huh? Hegseth isn't even Catholic, He's an Evangelical. I was born and raised Catholic as was my wife. I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. I was never around any Protestants on a daily basis until my fish year in the Corps. I never saw a Jerusalem Cross, or even heard of it until a few days ago, with this story. Ditto my wife, 16 years of Catholic schooling. She never saw that, didn't even know what it was when I showed it to her.

What Hegseth doesn't tell us? It's the "Deus Vult" tattoo on his bicep, not the Jerusalem Cross, that makes him so nuclear. A battle cry from the Crusades, "God Wills It" in Latin. ( I had to study 2 years of Latin.). That phrase and tattoo has been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. A few years ago, a gunman shot up 2 Mosques in New Zealand. He killed 49 people. That phrase was prominent in his Manifesto. At Charlottsville (Good people on both sides!) it was displayed on at least one flag.

Okay, maybe Hegseth didn't know about that. WRONG! No excuse. He attended Princeton, then Harvard. He's no dummy. And as a Military Officer, he had an obligation to know. The military has a clear policy about offensive tattoos.

That is a Non-Starter. Right then and there.

There's more. Hegseth says he applied for a position with the New York State Guard. He was not accepted. He claims that it was because of his high profile right wing politics, that the NY Guard was, of course, too "Woke" (Ever the Victim). The NY Guard said that they didn't have a slot for someone of his rank at the time he applied. Hey, that happens all the time. He claimed that Democratic NY Gov. Cuomo was instrumental in his rejection by the NY Guard. Cuomo's office was contacted.. Cuomo stated that he never even knew of Hegseth until the last few days.

Is being disingenuous a reason why he is unfit to serve as SecDef? No.

Is sporting a Neo-Nazi tattoo a reason he is unfit? Absolutely. Non-Starter.

Source. Washington Post Article Nov. 16, 2024.

---

Well, hell if Cuomo said something about a political adversary it absolutely HAS to be true.

I have no strong feelings about Hegseth, other than he seems to be a bit of a lightweight for the SecDef position.

But stop weaving together nonsense from people who have clear agendas to torpedo the nom.

Tanker123 said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

This appointment is a compelling reason for using the normal vetting process instead of being vetted by the news media.

---

Enlighten us.

What is the "normal" vetting process for a cabinet position?

I'll hang up and listen...

---

I am not an expert on the vetting process especially for such a high appointment. However, I can say a federal agency will conduct the vetting process. I will strongly assume for the SECDEF position, the background checks should be significantly extensive to include numerous interviews, records searches, and anything that might compromise the applicant.

---

Federal agencies don't vet candidates for political appointments at any level -- nor should they.

That is the party's responsibility.

Security clearances are a different matter.

We have had many very "qualified" SECDEFs who have been utter disasters. I'm all for a 44 year old outsider. I mean what's the worst that could happen? Spending 20 years in Afghanistan and leaving all our equipment for the Taliban? Oh wait . . .