Pete Hegseth, Trump Dept of Defense nominee…

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Jxn Vol]

I didn't know back then that pulling out was an option. And even if I did - like Ron White - I had the right to, but I didn't have the ability.

Ok Tater

 

[Vol423]

That's my point though.

They should be hammering on why the acquisition system is utterly broken and what he could do to fix it.

Or why we waste billions on end of year "fall out money" in order to preserve inflated budgets. And what he's going to do about it.

Or how he's going to pass the next audit and hold those accountable for the previous failings.

Or how he would plan to fix the recruiting problem.

There's a whole mess of questions both Democrats and Republicans should be asking that would give them a very good answer on whether he's qualified or not. But it's nothing more than political theater.

Political theater...in Congress?

 

[utvolpj]

So far neither side has asked tough questions that would determine his fitness to perform the role.

They have no incentive to do so in our political world. Most of their constituents don't want it anyways

 

[Jxn Vol]

The Jagoffs in DC are mad

 

[C-south]

Yeah, what damage can a bad secdef do anyways?

There won’t be a candidate that meets your “standards” in any position.

 

[MHS Rebel]

Ok Tater

Back then I was known as Tater Salad - or Poot.

Or QuickDraw - or is that "withdraw."

 

[Orangeburst]

 

[Orangeburst]

heck, the General actually got a promotion. clown world.

 

[me_grag53]

Precedent would hold that you need some level of military command experience / DoD experience / Policy experience, generally at high levels.

That is why we are here now. dei is cultural marxism. Todays democrat party is supported by the communist party usa. Check the cpusa website. They want to only give us a choice of pre approved nominees from within the D.C. status quo. And we have this:Mast Demands Answers on Pentagon's Promotion of Iranian Influence Agent

 

[Vol737]

Mr. Hegseth has his work cut out for him. Honduras, which houses the largest military base in Central America, is going to kick the US to the curb if tRump moves forward on mass deportations. Maybe tRump can invade the Vatican too! lol

Opinion | Pope Francis’ D.C. archbishop appointment is a poke at Trump

The Catholic Church is not going to stop fighting for the rights of immigrants even as a demagogue promising mass deportations prepares to enter the White House.

www.msnbc.com

Okay, so put you down for don’t care about our immigration laws, don’t care that about the pressure it puts on infrastructure, don’t care about what it costs taxpayers, don’t care about the crime that comes with it and that their are actually some very dangerous people coming through our border and put you down for you’re going to try this with (insert country here) and see what they do with you? Be sure and get back to us with that. I’m guessing it goes something like this…

 

[lawgator1]

Such commentary is as worthless as a lot of the posturing by Dems. Who cares if this guy is
"embarrassed," or, more accurately, that he got himself on tv saying he's embarrassed, so that num nuts on the right would be giddy with insult.

Whatever.

I care about whether he is qualified and whether his personal conduct otherwise disqualifies him from SecDef position. To me, the legit points center on:

a) He served well and honorably and has combat level and at least some supervisory experience. The questioning should be on whether that experience is sufficient for this position. I have no idea whether it is, or isn't. But that should be the question, i..e how well-rounded is his experience and will he know what the military brass are telling him as events unfold in real time.

b) At some point in his career, he decided to take on social issues within the military. Meh, I think its petty and beneath the position, but I can see how some my question his judgment to make such things his cause de celeb and so such questions are legit.

c) Sexual misconduct. I think the main issue is whether there is anything lurking that could be used to pressure or blackmail him by an adversary. I mean, sure, some people will find his conduct disqualifying -- that's up to them and no hearings will change it. As I say its more what we don't know that I'd be concerned about as a Senator and how that might be used against him.

d) Excessive drinking. Legit concern because SecDef must be sober 24/7 for the next four years. No exceptions, and for obvious reasons. He says he won't drink -- its a judgment call whether the Senators believe him, they will have to go with the background information on this.


The only other reason to vote against him is political based on his having been one of the many simpleminded, smirking, talking heads on Fox. Personally, I don't think much of him in that role and believe he's one of the sheep. But its not disqualifying. So whether I like him or not for being on Fox, the focus should be on whether he can do the job.

 

[Orangeburst]

That is why we are here now. dei is cultural marxism. Todays democrat party is supported by the communist party usa. Check the cpusa website. They want to only give us a choice of pre approved nominees from within the D.C. status quo. And we have this:Mast Demands Answers on Pentagon's Promotion of Iranian Influence Agent

In my life, I have never seen such an Anti American, disavowment of successful standards, and non-meritorious scam imposed on our nation. And people want to talkaboutHegseth not being qualified when Dems promote based on gender, color and sexuality.

 

[Orangeburst]

Such commentary is as worthless as a lot of the posturing by Dems. Who cares if this guy is
"embarrassed," or, more accurately, that he got himself on tv saying he's embarrassed, so that num nuts on the right would be giddy with insult.

Whatever.

I care about whether he is qualified and whether his personal conduct otherwise disqualifies him from SecDef position. To me, the legit points center on:

a) He served well and honorably and has combat level and at least some supervisory experience. The questioning should be on whether that experience is sufficient for this position. I have no idea whether it is, or isn't. But that should be the question, i..e how well-rounded is his experience and will he know what the military brass are telling him as events unfold in real time.

b) At some point in his career, he decided to take on social issues within the military. Meh, I think its petty and beneath the position, but I can see how some my question his judgment to make such things his cause de celeb and so such questions are legit.

c) Sexual misconduct. I think the main issue is whether there is anything lurking that could be used to pressure or blackmail him by an adversary. I mean, sure, some people will find his conduct disqualifying -- that's up to them and no hearings will change it. As I say its more what we don't know that I'd be concerned about as a Senator and how that might be used against him.

d) Excessive drinking. Legit concern because SecDef must be sober 24/7 for the next four years. No exceptions, and for obvious reasons. He says he won't drink -- its a judgment call whether the Senators believe him, they will have to go with the background information on this.


The only other reason to vote against him is political based on his having been one of the many simpleminded, smirking, talking heads on Fox. Personally, I don't think much of him in that role and believe he's one of the sheep. But its not disqualifying. So whether I like him or not for being on Fox, the focus should be on whether he can do the job.

So he cant take on social issues that were created by Dems in first place? Whatever.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[Orangeburst]

and Dems wanted democracy, ie majority rule, but now care about the Republic, standards, or even having a voice in any governmental affairs.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[lawgator1]

So he cant take on social issues that were created by Dems in first place? Whatever.

Of course he can.

The judgment issue is whether turning his career into a debate about those issues shows too much of a fixation on those issues for political purposes, versus much more important ones.

IMO a SecDef ought to be 99.9 percent about ongoing military confrontation, and 0.1 percent about public policy. Leave that to the politicians.

 

[Orangeburst]

Of course he can.

The judgment issue is whether turning his career into a debate about those issues shows too much of a fixation on those issues for political purposes, versus much more important ones.

IMO a SecDef ought to be 99.9 percent about ongoing military confrontation, and 0.1 percent about public policy. Leave that to the politicians.

Frankly, you never bring these issues up with Dems, like Austin promoting DEI and others like saying too many white officers, etc. So your croc tears dont concern anyone that matters.

 

[lawgator1]

Frankly, you never bring these issues up with Dems, like Austin promoting DEI and others like saying too many white officers, etc. So your croc tears dont concern anyone that matters.

No one particularly brought that to my attention but sure if Austin was spending his time on DEI issues rather than dealing with military confrontation I'd agree.

 

[Sea Ray]

Such commentary is as worthless as a lot of the posturing by Dems. Who cares if this guy is
"embarrassed," or, more accurately, that he got himself on tv saying he's embarrassed, so that num nuts on the right would be giddy with insult.

Whatever.

I care about whether he is qualified and whether his personal conduct otherwise disqualifies him from SecDef position. To me, the legit points center on:

a) He served well and honorably and has combat level and at least some supervisory experience. The questioning should be on whether that experience is sufficient for this position. I have no idea whether it is, or isn't. But that should be the question, i..e how well-rounded is his experience and will he know what the military brass are telling him as events unfold in real time.

b) At some point in his career, he decided to take on social issues within the military. Meh, I think its petty and beneath the position, but I can see how some my question his judgment to make such things his cause de celeb and so such questions are legit.

c) Sexual misconduct. I think the main issue is whether there is anything lurking that could be used to pressure or blackmail him by an adversary. I mean, sure, some people will find his conduct disqualifying -- that's up to them and no hearings will change it. As I say its more what we don't know that I'd be concerned about as a Senator and how that might be used against him.

d) Excessive drinking. Legit concern because SecDef must be sober 24/7 for the next four years. No exceptions, and for obvious reasons. He says he won't drink -- its a judgment call whether the Senators believe him, they will have to go with the background information on this.


The only other reason to vote against him is political based on his having been one of the many simpleminded, smirking, talking heads on Fox. Personally, I don't think much of him in that role and believe he's one of the sheep. But its not disqualifying. So whether I like him or not for being on Fox, the focus should be on whether he can do the job.

You didn't even list my biggest issue. He paid off a girl while denying wrongdoing. OK, so he gave in to blackmail. That's not a good trait to have as def sec. Is he susceptible to being blackmailed? That's really something more for Trump to vet and I hope he did.

 

[Orangeburst]

No one particularly brought that to my attention but sure if Austin was spending his time on DEI issues rather than dealing with military confrontation I'd agree.

Sec of Defense is a civilian position and reports to the CIC, so having views that align isnt a shock. When the Chairman of JCS orany other military rank makes such comments, then that is a much bigger issue.

Biden's Joint Chiefs chairman nominee accused of 'race-based' hiring in military by conservative group

President Biden's nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., is under fire from conservatives for supporting DEI programs in the military.

www.foxnews.com

 

[lawgator1]

You didn't even list my biggest issue. He paid off a girl while denying wrongdoing. OK, so he gave in to blackmail. That's not a good trait to have as def sec. Is he susceptible to being blackmailed? That's really something more for Trump to vet and I hope he did.

One would assume they looked at it. And if the accusers are known and it won't be too distracting, some might view it as a character issue and that's fine. Some may not, and that's fine.

Its more whether there's more coming down the pike that have an air of authenticity to their claims.

 

[Orangeburst]

Document: Air Force now recruiting based on racial quotas to cut white male population in officer corps

Memos and documents first reported by the Daily Caller show that the Air Force is purposefully reducing the number o while males in its officer corps programs. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman CQ Brown’s 2022 memo in 2022 says that the new goal is diversity and inclusion to “better reflect our...

mustreadalaska.com

Inside the Air Force Chief’s Mission for Racial Equity

“There's still a lot to do,’ said Gen. C.Q. Brown, ‘...we didn't get here overnight, we're not gonna get out of here overnight.”

www.defenseone.com

funny no one is concerned with this. could post these all day.

 

[ETV]

This guy has really managed nothing of note

Compared to previous nominees that spent their formative political years within the bubble of the pentagon? While learning the ins and outs of DC and cozying up to those who may help advance their own political career, post military service.

Isn’t the definition of insanity repeating the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result?