Women in Combat

Quote:

---

Then, in 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the ban on women in combat would be lifted entirely, and that female service members would be allowed to serve in direct ground combat roles. In 2015, this was put into action. This historic change opened up hundreds of thousands of jobs for women in the military and essentially ensured that as long as female service members completed the necessary training and requirements, they could now serve in almost any role in the U.S. Armed Forces.

More...

---

I thought we put this issue behind us more than a decade ago. Apparently not. Trump's nominee for Defense Secretary wants to reverse course. Below is what he said last week. To be fair to Hegseth, a Fox News Host, he surely had no idea when he spoke last week that anyone would consider nominating him to lead the U.S. military.

Quote:

---

"I'm straight up just saying we shouldn't have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, it hasn't made us more lethal, it has made fighting more complicated," Hegseth said.

He added: "As the disclaimer for everybody out there, we've all served with women and they're great. It's just our institutions don't have to incentivize that in places where traditionally, not traditionally, over human history, men in those positions are more capable."

Before this, Hegseth had argued that his position was about maintaining the standards of military units.

He said: "You had women truck drivers...or mechanics on these convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then they'd be ambushed or hit by IUDs and suddenly you have women in combat - that's maybe a modern reality in a 360 battlefield, that's different than intentionally saying 'we're gonna put women into combat roles so they will do the combat roles of men,' knowing that we've changed the standards in putting them there, which means you've changed the capability of that unit.

"And if you say you haven't, you're a liar. Because everybody knows, between bone density and lung capacity and muscle strength, men and women are just different."

More...

---

A Thread For ClydeR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

I thought we put this issue behind us more than a decade ago. Apparently not. Trump's nominee for Defense Secretary wants to reverse course. Below is what he said last week. To be fair to Hegseth, a Fox News Host, he surely had no idea when he spoke last week that anyone would consider nominating him to lead the U.S. military.

---

Fuck yeah. We're going back, bitch.

Pete Hegseth, lol. only the best people

what country has the most powerful military in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyb

what country has the most powerful military in the world?

---

I’m sure this has nothing to do with answering your question:

https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/f...rison-full.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyb

Pete Hegseth, lol. only the best people

---

What specifically makes him unqualified for the position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

What specifically makes him unqualified for the position?

---

All he was told was Pete Hegseth was on Fox & Friends. Nothing else matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

What specifically makes him unqualified for the position?

---

That's not how it works. A person is unqualified unless there is something, or some combination of things, that makes him qualified or unless there is something that disqualifies him. There will be many Senators who believe that he is disqualified by his desire to roll back the rules on women in combat by more than 10 years. Will any of them be Republicans? Will he say he misspoke?

Quote:

---

Published 6:09 PM CST, January 19, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — Twelve U.S. National Guard members have been removed from securing President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration after vetting by the FBI, including two who made extremist statements in posts or texts about the Wednesday event, Pentagon officials said. There were no specific threats to Biden.

Two other U.S. officials told The Associated Press that all 12 were found to have ties with right-wing militia groups or posted extremist views online. The officials, a senior intelligence official and an Army official briefed on the matter, did not say which fringe groups the Guard members belonged to or what unit they served in. The officials were not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to The AP on condition of anonymity. The officials told the AP they had all been removed because of “security liabilities.”

More...

---

The article does not identify any of the 12 Guard members. Wonder if we've ever heard of any of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

The article does not identify any of the 12 Guard members. Wonder if we've ever heard of any of them?

---

1) Peter
2) Andrew
3) James
4) John
5) Philip
6) Bartholomew
7) Thomas
8) Matthew
9) James
10) Thaddaeus
11) Simon
12) Judas Iscariot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

That's not how it works. A person is unqualified unless there is something, or some combination of things, that makes him qualified or unless there is something that disqualifies him. There will be many Senators who believe that he is disqualified by his desire to roll back the rules on women in combat by more than 10 years. Will any of them be Republicans? Will he say he misspoke?

---

So, he is qualified for the position.

And I'm all for not lowering the standards so that {insert protected class here because "ZOMG RIGHTS!"} can finally make it in so we can say "We did it!"

Many women do not belong at the front lines of any combat situation.

I also don't believe some soy chugging, limp wristed loser like you should be in the military either... not that you would even try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

The article does not identify any of the 12 Guard members. Wonder if we've ever heard of any of them?

---

Pete Hegseth said one of them was him.. because he has a tattoo of a cross on his chest and it hurt someone's feelings and somehow a cross tattoo makes you automatically a white supremacist.

I can't wait for him to get in there and just start cleaning house from all the DEI nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

desire to roll back the rules on women in combat by more than 10 years

---

You say roll back, most rational people say reevaluate a desire to make a class of people "equal" to another class that is predominately physically superior. Perhaps don't qualify it with women, but say only people who meet a certain physical fitness threshold may serve on the front lines? Or do you oppose that as well because "fairness"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

And I'm all for not lowering the standards so that {insert protected class here because "ZOMG RIGHTS!"} can finally make it in so we can say "We did it!"

---

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

---

A woman’s battlefield is in the kitchen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Women serve in combat roles now under the standards in place now. Hegseth is the one talking about changing the standards. He wants to change the rules for the purpose of excluding women.

---

Here's the part you intentionally made. NOW being the key word.

The standards were lowered so women and flimsy wristed soyboys like you could pass (well not you.. you're way too weak).

Hegseth wants to bring back the standards PRIOR to them being changed.

Heaven forbid we reevaluate standards ever.

Not talking politics, but will comment on this, as I did do a bit of time.

My take - men or women in combat, doesn't bother me either way. If you as a willing person want to serve, then serve.

Standards should be based upon the job. What I mean by this is - not a different standard for all MOS's... but one for Combat Arms and one for Combat Support roles.

To join and serve in the Military - there is a baseline standard. So many pushups/sit-ups/run times etc. I get it. That "baseline" should be the "baseline". Those that serve, and their Commanders, should push for excellence... but a "baseline" for Combat Support positions should be determined and adhered to. The MINIMUM should be required by all personnel. The MAXIMUM should have an alternate scale for Men and Women. Example:

Push Ups - 2 minutes:
MINIMUM for ALL - 40 = 60 points
MAXIMUM for F - 60 = 100 points
MAXIMUM for M - 80 = 100 points

Made up rough numbers for ease... Point being; the MINIMUM should be required by ALL, to be able to conduct said required missions. The MAXIMUM is designed to account for biological differences, etc.

Now in Combat Arms Roles... it is one standard for ALL. The job dictates the physical requirements; not gender IMO. Example would be:

Push ups - 2 min.
MINIMUM 60 pushups = 60 points
MAXIMUM 100 pushups = 100 points
No exclusions for gender. The job is the job, and the requirements are the requirements for said job. If you can do it, great. If not, go to a Combat Support role.

As for women in combat and certain roles... there is a difference when talking Conventional Army vs. the SOF realm.

Conventional = less time to develop; train; push through mass amounts of candidates. The %'s do not favor co-ed Combat Arms training brigades at the Conventional level. To much turn over, etc. etc.

The SOF side is completely different. I was fortunate to meet some of the toughest dudes on the planet and assist them with their endeavors (I was a support guy)... want to know who 2 of the baddest I ever met - they were ladies. Want to talk about some astounding operators, these ladies were amazing. They were the exception, not the rule.

The SOF side has the time; resources; etc. to take exceptional people - of whatever gender - and get what they need from them. Again it's a % game of throughput. But, men just have a physical advantage in a physical job. The ladies that do operate at that level, are rare indeed, and amazing individuals. Truly was a pleasure getting to watch them operate.

Just my 2 cents, but ya.

Side note, for the moron above talking about "standards".

When I came in the standards were much harder. It all shifted when they changed the run times a few years after I joined.

When I joined, to max the run, we had to run an 11:54. Know what everyone ran? In the 11s and 12s.

Later they changed the max to 13 minutes. Know what everyone ran? 13 minutes.

Beginning of the end... they lowered the standards to increase retention, as opposed to training up individuals joining - and requiring those of us already in to retain those standards... but retention #'s did go up LOL.

The problem with women in combat roles is when you put 100+ pounds on their back they collapse under the weight. They have tiny hollow bones.

A small percentage of willing females can have the necessary mindset & be in peak physical fitness for their gender, but you can’t beat physics. A woman in combat is like a human male fighting against smart armed silverback gorillas. It just doesn’t make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

The problem with women in combat roles is when you put 100+ pounds on their back they collapse under the weight. They have tiny hollow bones.

A small percentage of willing females can have the necessary mindset & be in peak physical fitness for their gender, but you can’t beat physics. A woman in combat is like a human male fighting against smart armed silverback gorillas. It just doesn’t make sense.

---

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

Beyond the physical differences in gender, almost all women are not mentally suited for combat. Hell, most men are not both mentally and physically fit for combat. There is a damn good reason the infantry is composed of young men in their prime. Combat = hell. Why would we ever want to subject women to something like this?:

https://youtu.be/D3ILZI3ZCpQ?si=URnkSKRoGwPCgSUE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Beyond the physical differences in gender, almost all women are not mentally suited for combat. Hell, most men are not both mentally and physically fit for combat. There is a damn good reason the infantry is composed of young men in their prime. Combat = hell. Why would we ever want to subject women to something like this?:

https://youtu.be/D3ILZI3ZCpQ?si=URnkSKRoGwPCgSUE

---

Again, your example of the "Infantry" is a misnomer. When did I say women should serve in the Infantry? I didn't. I actually said the opposite. So your whole premise is incorrect, therefor I have no rebuttal.

Also, call me "enlightened", "delusional", or whatever you want... I see people as people. I don't care what your gender, race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity is... none of it. If you are a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, then do what you want... and you should be afforded the opportunity to suffer just like anyone else.

Do I personally believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? No.
Do I politically believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? Yes.

Why? Because if you require it of one segment of the population, you should require it of all segments of society... as a baseline rule. Conscription is conscription, regardless of gender.

In an all volunteer force, you as a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, should be able to make your own choices and me, you, or anyone else shouldn't tell you you can't. That's just my opinion.

Did I like seeing female Soldiers die? No, I didn't.
Did I like seeing male Soldiers die? No, I didn't.

But one didn't affect me more than the other, they affected me equally... because I saw them as fellow Soldiers, not my male or female civilian counterparts.

I know people have differing views, and that's fine. That's what's great about this country. I'm just expressing my position, that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

---

No doubt there are always exceptions and I’m not taking away anything of the badassness of women that serve. I’m just saying that bone size and density male vs female is a scientific fact. It doesn’t matter how many pushups they can do or how fast they can run a mile, that is a physical limitation.

As a more obvious example, a woman is ill suited to be a paratrooper jumping out of an airplane with 300 pounds of gear. I work with a dude that did that and his back is permanently fucked.

Edit: I’m not arguing against you. I may just have a difference of opinion and I stand by my reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

No doubt there are always exceptions and I’m not taking away anything of the badassness of women that serve. I’m just saying that bone size and density male vs female is a scientific fact. It doesn’t matter how many pushups they can do or how fast they can run a mile, that is a physical limitation.

As a more obvious example, a woman is ill suited to be a paratrooper jumping out of an airplane with 300 pounds of gear. I work with a dude that did that and his back is permanently fucked.

Edit: I’m not arguing against you. I may just have a difference of opinion and I stand by my reasons.

---

Again... I at no point said the overall Conventional Forces, and specifically Combat Arms elements, should include women in their training pipelines. I said the exact opposite. Because the %'s of those physically capable does not meet the threshold for retention and turnover required for participation. It's as simple as that. The "Machine" must work efficiently, and it would be inefficient when pushing out 10s of thousands of Soldiers for Conventional Combat Arm MOSs.

Women are just fine jumping out of planes, just like the men. It sucks for everyone. I started at 5'10, I'm now 5'7 - 5'8 on a good day. The old joke of "jumping out of a perfectly good airplane" is funny, because it's so true.

Again, I think of it as a "Machine". The "machine" must be ran in an efficient manner. The "machine" is the Conventional Forces. Hence my position of women's roles in Combat Arms vs. Combat Support roles.

The SOF community is a whole other beast, which I've already laid out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Again, your example of the "Infantry" is a misnomer. When did I say women should serve in the Infantry? I didn't. I actually said the opposite. So your whole premise is incorrect, therefor I have no rebuttal.

Also, call me "enlightened", "delusional", or whatever you want... I see people as people. I don't care what your gender, race, ethnicity, sexual proclivity is... none of it. If you are a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, then do what you want... and you should be afforded the opportunity to suffer just like anyone else.

Do I personally believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? No.
Do I politically believe women should be required to join the Selective Service? Yes.

Why? Because if you require it of one segment of the population, you should require it of all segments of society... as a baseline rule. Conscription is conscription, regardless of gender.

In an all volunteer force, you as a free thinking INDIVIDUAL, should be able to make your own choices and me, you, or anyone else shouldn't tell you you can't. That's just my opinion.

Did I like seeing female Soldiers die? No, I didn't.
Did I like seeing male Soldiers die? No, I didn't.

But one didn't affect me more than the other, they affected me equally... because I saw them as fellow Soldiers, not my male or female civilian counterparts.

I know people have differing views, and that's fine. That's what's great about this country. I'm just expressing my position, that's it.

---

I think we’re largely on the same page with some small disagreements, and that’s ok. I have no problem with women serving in the military in non-combat roles, and that includes combat support roles where there is a lower probability they could face such a situation like an ambush. I think they should also be trained for the basics of combat in case they face it. I don’t support women being conscripted or to be placed in active combat roles.

SOF should be comprised of the best of the best for the missions they will find themselves in, and even mediocre males are better suited for combat than the very best exceptional females. Don’t believe me? Put the world champion female of any combat sport in a match against an averaged ranked professional in the same sport & see what happens.

Call me misogynistic or whatever, but that’s my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

---

I am not going to argue the mental suitability or any of that other stuff. I would agree that in the SOF community they have plenty of time IF the person meets the minimums to get in. I would further suggest that the basic requirements be the same regardless of the sex of the soldier. If you can meet the minimum, then you can serve in certain combat roles. If you can't, you don't. Rifles weight the same for men and women. Ammo is the same, comms gear, MREs, water, armor, other equipment, it all weights the same so the combat soldier should meet the same requirement. As my nephew complained, there is nothing more destructive to morale than having a woman in the platoon, everyone is putting on full kit, 100+ pounds of gear and then part of her share is farmed out to others because she can't carry it. He also said the same for some wimpy ass men too so don't think he was discriminating, if you can't carry your load, you can't carry your load. BTW, he is like 5'6" and weighted like 140 going into the corp, when he left due to concussion trauma from a couple artillery shells in an IED detonating and shaking his MRAP like a children's toy, he was 168 pounds and none was fat.

Not to mention the whole transgender BS. We don't allow diabetics in certain positions because insulin isn't guaranteed in combat situations, these idiots require a lot more than just insulin.

NOW, that being said, in support roles, certain combat roles that don't live and die by what they carry on their back, sure. Female combat pilots are fine assuming the exact same standards for flight school are maintained, pilots don't ruck 100+ pounds on patrol. I am fine with instituting the flat standard because the gear and combat conditions are the same.

Before the Left starts crying "But Israel . . ." they have a different army structure and purpose. They are oriented around a defensive posture and seldom do they ruck 20 miles in a day to combat. US troops must prepare to do that day in, day out.

Europe is finding out that their female troops aren't doing so well either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

I disagree, as I know and have served with women that would put 95% of men to shame.

Again, if you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the biological differences between men and women... I focus on the job dictating standards vs. gender dictating standards... and differentiate between Conventional Forces vs. the SOF community.

Do I think women should be put in conventional forces Combat Arms positions? No.
Not because some can't do the job. It's because the training pipelines; time constraints; and personnel turnover are not conducive to it. Hence, it should not be a standard practice in the war-fighter making machine.

Do I think women should, could, and do work in the SOF, and other Combat Arms roles, where the training pipelines have the resources and time to facilitate their inclusion? Absolutely.

---

Nah. I was in the infantry, we had women assigned to us for female engagement. Fucking useless. We had to babysit them and they couldn't carry anything and then they had to have their own sleeping areas and shit so we had to cram two squads into one tent so they could have a whole gp tent to themselves.

I'm not saying there aren't men who are just as crappy. They shouldn't be in the infantry either, but when you lower standards to allow those women in, you're letting those men in too, thereby making the entire force weaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

They shouldn't be in the infantry either, but when you lower standards to allow those women in, you're letting those men in too, thereby making the entire force weaker.

---

Help is on the way.

https://religiondispatches.org/wp-co...24/11/hegs.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Nah. I was in the infantry, we had women assigned to us for female engagement. Fucking useless. We had to babysit them and they couldn't carry anything and then they had to have their own sleeping areas and shit so we had to cram two squads into one tent so they could have a whole gp tent to themselves.

I'm not saying there aren't men who are just as crappy. They shouldn't be in the infantry either, but when you lower standards to allow those women in, you're letting those men in too, thereby making the entire force weaker.

---

Again... I appreciate your guys insight, experiences, and positions... but you're "quoting" me and commenting on things I did not say.

1. I never said women should be in the Infantry.
2. I never said women should be in the training pipelines or serve in Combat Arms Units.
3. I never said change, lower, adjust standards... I stated the standards should apply based upon the job requirements - hence a "baseline", regardless of sex/gender, to serve in Combat Support and Combat Arms respectively.

So again, have your opinions, I'm open to listening... but the rebuttals should apply to what I said, not what you "think I said".

Pretty sure we're all right around 95% in agreement - the 5%, from what I can see from replies, simply has to do with a difference in the terms "allowing" vs. "able to"... and again, as I refer to Conventional Forces "the machine" working properly and smoothly to ensure maximum readiness. I've already made the distinction regarding the SOF community and the "Machine", so won't touch on that again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Again... I appreciate your guys insight, experiences, and positions... but you're "quoting" me and commenting on things I did not say.

1. I never said women should be in the Infantry.
2. I never said women should be in the training pipelines or serve in Combat Arms Units.
3. I never said change, lower, adjust standards... I stated the standards should apply based upon the job requirements - hence a "baseline", regardless of sex/gender, to serve in Combat Support and Combat Arms respectively.

So again, have your opinions, I'm open to listening... but the rebuttals should apply to what I said, not what you "think I said".

Pretty sure we're all right around 95% in agreement - the 5%, from what I can see from replies, simply has to do with a difference in the terms "allowing" vs. "able to"... and again, as I refer to Conventional Forces "the machine" working properly and smoothly to ensure maximum readiness. I've already made the distinction regarding the SOF community and the "Machine", so won't touch on that again.

---

The rebuttals are to women putting 95% of men to shame. Some might, but nah... Unless all the weak men just go into the Army I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Help is on the way.

https://religiondispatches.org/wp-co...24/11/hegs.jpg

---

Is that tattoo MDCCLXXV? Isn't something missing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Is that tattoo MDCCLXXV? Isn't something missing?

---

Using Google is super hard for you, isn't it?

https://i.imgur.com/q3miYND.png
https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/us-new...seths-tattoos/


In other news, here's some more extra stupid from the left:

https://i.imgur.com/O37zTB0.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

The rebuttals are to women putting 95% of men to shame. Some might, but nah... Unless all the weak men just go into the Army I guess.

---

Again... I didn't say "women put 95% of men to shame"...

I was speaking about some (not all) women that I got to work with, and they specifically could put "95% of men to shame"... They were utter badasses. And yes, they'd put you, me, and 95% of other males to shame... because they were that good, and that's why they were working the positions they were working.

So again, please read what I'm saying... not what you think I'm saying.

And please, "all the weak men just go into the Army"? ... you think that's a dig? Fucking Marines, I swear. Your guys ego are almost as bad as the SEALs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Again... I didn't say "women put 95% of men to shame"...

I was speaking about some (not all) women that I got to work with, and they specifically could put "95% of men to shame"... They were utter badasses. And yes, they'd put you, me, and 95% of other males to shame... because they were that good, and that's why they were working the positions they were working.

So again, please read what I'm saying... not what you think I'm saying.

And please, "all the weak men just go into the Army"? ... you think that's a dig? Fucking Marines, I swear. Your guys ego are almost as bad as the SEALs.

---

Unrelated (kinda), but when I see women UFC fighters, I believe my out of shape & untrained ass can take them in the first round. The key is you have to smack them with overwhelming man power hard and first. In reality, I’d probably get my ass beat down in an embarrassing spectacle, but this is what I tell myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Unrelated (kinda), but when I see women UFC fighters, I believe my out of shape & untrained ass can take them in the first round. The key is you have to smack them with overwhelming man power hard and first. In reality, I’d probably get my ass beat down in an embarrassing spectacle, but this is what I tell myself.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apfr6P2uUfo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

Unrelated (kinda), but when I see women UFC fighters, I believe my out of shape & untrained ass can take them in the first round. The key is you have to smack them with overwhelming man power hard and first. In reality, I’d probably get my ass beat down in an embarrassing spectacle, but this is what I tell myself.

---

Straight up fights - yes physicality wins out most times, etc.

In the military, we're talking gun fights mainly... so there is that :P .

Side note: Appreciate the unsigned Red rep to "Give it up already". Free world, you can have your opinion. I accept the red rep. You not signing though? Don't be a bitch. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Straight up fights - yes physicality wins out most times, etc.

In the military, we're talking gun fights mainly... so there is that :P .

Side note: Appreciate the unsigned Red rep to "Give it up already". Free world, you can have your opinion. I accept the red rep. You not signing though? Don't be a bitch. LOL

---

Unsigned rep still isn't anonymous. It just takes a couple extra steps to see who left it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Straight up fights - yes physicality wins out most times, etc.

In the military, we're talking gun fights mainly... so there is that :P .

Side note: Appreciate the unsigned Red rep to "Give it up already". Free world, you can have your opinion. I accept the red rep. You not signing though? Don't be a bitch. LOL

---

I shoot a lot, and not to offend anyone but most military & LEO that I have encountered at the flat range leave something to be desired as it relates to marksmanship. I’ve never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will. I have had very limited training on tactics, shooting behind cover, moving & communicating with a team, etc. That’s a whole different ball game and I’m sure I would get smoked by anyone (male or female) with real experience. I’ve done my fair of competitive shooting, but IPSC targets don’t shoot back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I shoot a lot, and not to offend anyone but most military & LEO that I have encountered at the flat range leave something to be desired as it relates to marksmanship. I’ve never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will. I have had very limited training on tactics, shooting behind cover, moving & communicating with a team, etc. That’s a whole different ball game and I’m sure I would get smoked by anyone (male or female) with real experience. I’ve done my fair of competitive shooting, but IPSC targets don’t shoot back.

---

That's what you get for not playing Counter-Strike more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

That's what you get for not playing Counter-Strike more.

---

I prefer Might & Magic where you can switch to turn-based combat when things get hairy. :rofl:

https://www.questforgaming.com/media/uploads/mm6_02.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I prefer Might & Magic where you can switch to turn-based combat when things get hairy. :rofl:

https://www.questforgaming.com/media/uploads/mm6_02.jpg

---

I always wondered what real life war would be like if it was turn based.

And by always, I mean after reading your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I always wondered what real life war would be like if it was turn based.

And by always, I mean after reading your post.

---

It is turn based... what do you think "reloading" is? :D

The blow linked article provides context about military physical fitness standards..

Quote:

---

Women—who currently make up more than 21 percent of the active-duty force—have held combat roles in the military for decades, though it’s been a gradual progression. Congress repealed the law banning women from combat aviation and on ships in 1991 and 1993, respectively. The Navy reversed the policy barring women from submarines in 2010. And then in 2013, Congress announced the repeal of the combat exclusion policy, which was implemented in 2015. Over a quarter of a million women served in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, the largest-scale and most visible deployment of women in U.S. history. More than 1,000 women were injured in combat and 166 killed as of 2017, according to the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN).

Lory Manning, a Navy veteran who served as the director of government operations with SWAN, said Hegseth’s comments are “ill-informed” and there’s no substantial evidence that the presence of women in combat roles harms the U.S. military’s effectiveness.

“He keeps saying they’ve lowered standards for women [in combat roles], and that is just not true,” said Manning, who also led Women in the Military Project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute for 15 years. “Number one: it’s against the law to lower standards for women.”

Manning said he is likely confusing or conflating two different kinds of military standards: basic physical fitness and occupational. The basic physical fitness tests differ across military services and are typically adjusted by age and gender.

“These are basically just to see if this person is fit to be in the military, whether they’re a heart surgeon or a Catholic chaplain or a combat person,” Manning said. “But for every single job in the military, there’s also a set of occupational standards that have to be met. And the law says that they must be gender and age neutral.”

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

The blow linked article provides context about military physical fitness standards..

---

The *blow* article confirms what we have been talking about. You think that basic physical tests should be made easier for a 35 year old female as compared to a 18 year old male?

Secondly, and what you fail to grasp, is the standards for ALL get lowered when you are forced to meet DEI quotas. This is how it works: The Marines need X number of females to meet their self imposed DEI goals. X number of females in a specific role, like a combat soldier, get washed out for not meeting the standards of that position. So what do they do? They lower the standards for all so that more females will make the cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

You think that basic physical tests should be made easier for a 35 year old female as compared to a 18 year old male?

---

Yes. The purpose of the test is to determine if a person is physically fit, not to determine if the person is fit for a particular role in the military. Without making adjustment based on age or gender, many generals and other high-ranking individuals would be ineligible to serve. It's an old problem that was solved long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Straight up fights - yes physicality wins out most times, etc.

In the military, we're talking gun fights mainly... so there is that :P .

Side note: Appreciate the unsigned Red rep to "Give it up already". Free world, you can have your opinion. I accept the red rep. You not signing though? Don't be a bitch. LOL

---

But being a grunt is mroe than just gunfights. It is carrying all that shit to the fight too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

I shoot a lot, and not to offend anyone but most military & LEO that I have encountered at the flat range leave something to be desired as it relates to marksmanship. I’ve never been in a gun fight and hopefully never will. I have had very limited training on tactics, shooting behind cover, moving & communicating with a team, etc. That’s a whole different ball game and I’m sure I would get smoked by anyone (male or female) with real experience. I’ve done my fair of competitive shooting, but IPSC targets don’t shoot back.

---

Most of the military is non-shooting jobs and the vast majority of LEOs will never fire their weapon outside of the range, which is generally only required once a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Yes. The purpose of the test is to determine if a person is physically fit, not to determine if the person is fit for a particular role in the military. Without making adjustment based on age or gender, many generals and other high-ranking individuals would be ineligible to serve. It's an old problem that was solved long ago.

---

A General usually isn't going to be hiking an 80 pound pack or going into frontline combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

But being a grunt is mroe than just gunfights. It is carrying all that shit to the fight too.

---

What do grunts do when the "paper tiger" Russia is dropping ICBM's on their head at MACH 10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

What do grunts do when the "paper tiger" Russia is dropping ICBM's on their head at MACH 10?

---

duck and cover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

What do grunts do when the "paper tiger" Russia is dropping ICBM's on their head at MACH 10?

---

Same shit they do when getting shelled by 152mm HE, 82mm mortar HE or any other ordinance, they go to ground and seek cover. You know we have ways to shoot those things down, don't you? Also, how many ICBMs do you think they have? They are shitty to face, for sure but really, they are super expensive and only for very high value targets. It's a fear tactic that only works against those directly under fire and dumb people.

Russia facing US troops in a war would look a whole lot different than the Ukraine - Russia conflict. Single biggest change, every significant military target within 1000+ miles would be targeted from the air long before troops engage. It's a tried and effective tactic and we like it a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

Same shit they do when getting shelled by 152mm HE, 82mm mortar HE or any other ordinance, they go to ground and seek cover. You know we have ways to shoot those things down, don't you? Also, how many ICBMs do you think they have? They are shitty to face, for sure but really, they are super expensive and only for very high value targets. It's a fear tactic that only works against those directly under fire and dumb people.

Russia facing US troops in a war would look a whole lot different than the Ukraine - Russia conflict. Single biggest change, every significant military target within 1000+ miles would be targeted from the air long before troops engage. It's a tried and effective tactic and we like it a lot.

---

So effective that we haven't won a war since WW2.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe? You know they will come back in a box, right?

The lifespan of a Ukrainian soldier is 4 hours RN.

https://www.businessinsider.com/east...grinder-2023-2

What weapons system do we have that will take down an object moving at 10x the speed of sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

So effective that we haven't won a war since WW2.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe? You know they will come back in a box, right?

The lifespan of a Ukrainian soldier is 4 hours RN.

https://www.businessinsider.com/east...grinder-2023-2

What weapons system do we have that will take down an object moving at 10x the speed of sound?

---

We haven't been in a declared war since WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

We haven't been in a declared war since WW2.

---

Exactly, we've been in conflicts where we spend ungodly amounts of money then hand the place right back.

What made any of you think this was going to be any different?

Don't mean to hurt your pride, but, our military command and control sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

So effective that we haven't won a war since WW2.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe? You know they will come back in a box, right?

The lifespan of a Ukrainian soldier is 4 hours RN.

https://www.businessinsider.com/east...grinder-2023-2

What weapons system do we have that will take down an object moving at 10x the speed of sound?

---

The US has not been in a declared war since WWII. But, for shits and giggles, let's look at combat since then.

Korea, the US did not fully commit, we faced the full brunt of the Chinese military at the time supported by Soviet military and equipment. We fought them from a crippling initial attack back to winning and holding ground and a political standstill. The military won in the end by pretty much every military measure of victory. That's why MacArther wanted to go ahead at go into China to end the Chinese threat. The politicians said no, he lost his job. He was right.

Vietnam, the US went in under dubious treaty obligations and again, from the military stand point won every major battle, absorbed every major offensive and beat the VC and Chinese into the dirt. Again, politics "lost" the war there though again, the military won every significant engagement by every meaningful measure. Had the politicians not abandoned our allies and reneged on the like for like replacement pledge, Vietnam would not have had to suffer for decades under Communist rule.

Kuwait and then Iraq, no matter what you think about how we got there, the military won and stomped the shit out of a numerically larger force with modern equipment and infrastructure. They were the epitome of the Soviet military structure and philosophy, they were armed with top of the line Soviet/Russian equipment other than air force and they got roflstomped into paste. They used ICBMs, every scummy tactic, had chemical weapons and so on. They still lost by every measure of loss there is even in an urban environment in some of the worst city fighting US troops have faced since WWII.

Afghanistan. Again, the military won every major objective, every major conflict and waged a war against a gorilla force, hampered by political BS (come on now, hiding across border in our "ally" Pakistan only to cross the border to attack us and we can't go get you, political bullshit) and still roflstomped the fuck out of them with insanely small losses given the environment.

When it comes to ships, the Russian navy is just a bunch of targets to our sub fleet. They had a lot of subs, they have never caught up to our ability to track them despite defense contractors selling secrets and so on. China isn't even in the same book militarily much less the same page.

Let me make this absolutely, abundantly and glaring clear so that you and all the chucklefucks here can understand.

Biden put us into this war so his defense contractor puppet masters, among others could make bank. I want out of it. I hate war, it's just about the most horrible thing we humans do to do each other.

Ukraine is a corrupt shithole of politics and stupidity. They were stupid after the fall of the USSR. They had enough nuclear arsenal to be the #3 nuclear power in the world and the people and skills to maintain it. They gave it up on promises from Russia, the US and UK that they would be safe. Look what happened.

If we can't end this quickly, we will, sooner or later, be committing troops on the ground much more than the current crop of "advisers." Should that happen, I am an advocate for complete, total and unrestrained war. If we get into a shooting war with Russia, China and North Korea, we should, from the start, go full out. No stepped response, no measured force, we should go all out from the beginning to wipe them and their shitbag, communist, governments off the face of the earth. We should be so violent, destructive and horrible in a war that our own allies beg us to stop. Our enemies should be so beaten that to mention raising a stick against an American should make them break out in a cold sweat.

We had the opportunity on my father's generation to put this threat down, unify the world and keep our kids safe. We failed because of lack of will.

If Russia nukes anyone or anything. Hell, if anyone deploys a nuke first, they should get wiped from the face of the earth. Doesn't even have to be with nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction works only if you have the will to do it, otherwise you are just a windbag with a jelly spine.

So yes, if certain things happen I am just fine sending our kids to go kill an existential threat to America, secure the Freedoms and rights our forefathers fought for for us and our posterity from now until the sun goes dark.

And if I was in charge, I would make the decision. And then I would be there when the coffins came home to cry over them. And then I would thank the American people for their sacrifice and teach them how and why it's important. I am a great proponent of the following:

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”
― Thomas Paine, The Crisis

As too taking down ICBMs, look at things like Aegis SM-3 Block IIA. The latest version of the Patriot. And I am sure there are several things that are not declassified enough that us civies can even know their names.

BTW, I also think that if you take an American hostage as a terrorist, you should die, publicly, spectacularly, and as quickly as it can be made to happen. Again, to safeguard Americans now and into the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Exactly, we've been in conflicts where we spend ungodly amounts of money then hand the place right back.

What made any of you think this was going to be any different?

Don't mean to hurt your pride, but, our military command and control sucks.

---

An actual declaredd war would be way different from anything either of us have been alive for. All means of production would shift to military, the draft would be in effect, and we'd fight until the enemy was annihilated. You are comparing a declared war to policing actions that require constant Congressional oversight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Exactly, we've been in conflicts where we spend ungodly amounts of money then hand the place right back.

What made any of you think this was going to be any different?

Don't mean to hurt your pride, but, our military command and control sucks.

---

It's not our military that sucks.. is our politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

It's not our military that sucks.. is our politicians.

---

^^ This is correct.

Though to be fair, in peacetime, the military gets a lot of dead wood in the chain of command that are more politicians than war fighters and it can be hard to get them out. Which is part of why DEI in the military needs to be a clarion call for retirement/the boot. Our military has one job, to kill people and break things and anything that causes a problem with that doesn't need to be in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

^^ This is correct.

Though to be fair, in peacetime, the military gets a lot of dead wood in the chain of command that are more politicians than war fighters and it can be hard to get them out. Which is part of why DEI in the military needs to be a clarion call for retirement/the boot. Our military has one job, to kill people and break things and anything that causes a problem with that doesn't need to be in the military.

---

You still didn't answer the question.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe for a country that was selling off their military hardware to terrorists and drug cartels in the 90's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

You still didn't answer the question.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe for a country that was selling off their military hardware to terrorists and drug cartels in the 90's?

---

I wouldn't be sending anyone anywhere. If my children or their children join the military that is on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

You still didn't answer the question.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe for a country that was selling off their military hardware to terrorists and drug cartels in the 90's?

---

First, since you obviously haven't paid attention over the past decade plus that I have been here posting, I will say it again. I don't have kids, as much as I want too, my now, ex-wife lied about wanting to have more kids. It's part of why she is my ex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I wouldn't be sending anyone anywhere. If my children or their children join the military that is on them.

---

^^ This is correct and would be my position if I had kids.

I don't want anyone to have to go off and fight, but if they do, I want it to be as swift, violent and deadly to the enemy and anyone that helps them as possible so that it is over and done and again, we are so violent and horrible to fight that our own allies beg us not to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

You still didn't answer the question.

Will you be sending your children or grandchildren off to fight in the trenches of eastern Europe for a country that was selling off their military hardware to terrorists and drug cartels in the 90's?

---

I’m raising my 2 year old boys to be the future leaders of the human resistance and the last living hope for mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

First, since you obviously haven't paid attention over the past decade plus that I have been here posting, I will say it again. I don't have kids, as much as I want too, my now, ex-wife lied about wanting to have more kids. It's part of why she is my ex.

---

You know why divorce lawyers charge so much? Because it’s totally worth it.

(I have an ex-wife too and then later upgraded.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

You know why divorce lawyers charge so much? Because it’s totally worth it.

(I have an ex-wife too and then later upgraded.)

---

Absolutely worth every penny.

I haven't found the upgrade yet, had a prospect but she flaked. Right now, 2 years from debt free, 780+ credit score, paid off vehicles and so on. Going to have to be a heck of a package for me to risk messing up my peace and quiet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet

You know why divorce lawyers charge so much? Because it’s totally worth it.

(I have an ex-wife too and then later upgraded.)

---

So glad I married abroad, my first divorce cost me absolutely nothing!

On topic, I’m personally against women on the front line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solkern

So glad I married abroad, my first divorce cost me absolutely nothing!

On topic, I’m personally against women on the front line.

---

So we can add deadbeat to the long list of adjectives that describe you best.

Trump's Defense nominee, who intends to change military standards for the purpose of excluding women from combat jobs, has a history of mistreating women. That's according to his mother!

Quote:

---

The mother of Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.

“On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself,” Penelope Hegseth wrote, stating that she still loved him.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Trump's Defense nominee, who intends to change military standards for the purpose of excluding women from combat jobs, has a history of mistreating women. That's according to his mother!

---

Joe Biden molested/SAed his adult daughter in the shower multiple times but you didn't give a shit. Stop being a hypocrite. Oh, wait, you are a Leftist, you can't.

It sounds like he needs help, instead of reinforcement. I hope he gets it. I'm marking this nomination as failed.

Quote:

---

A previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America, from 2013 until 2016, describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity—to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization’s events. The detailed seven-page report—which was compiled by multiple former C.V.A. employees and sent to the organization’s senior management in February, 2015—states that, at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers, whom they divided into two groups—the “party girls” and the “not party girls.” In addition, the report asserts that, under Hegseth’s leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety, including an allegation made by a female employee that another employee on Hegseth’s staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the Louisiana strip club. In a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early-morning hours of May 29, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting “Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!”

More...

---

Quote:

---

In October, 2014, C.V.A. instituted a “no alcohol” policy at its events. But the next month, according to the report, Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy while overseeing a get-out-the-vote field operation to boost Republican candidates in North Carolina. According to the report, on the evening before the election, Hegseth, who had been out with three young female staff members, was so inebriated by 1 a.m. that a staffer who had driven him to his hotel, in a van full of other drunken staffers, asked for assistance to get Hegseth to his room. “Pete was completely passed out in the middle seat, slumped over” a young female staff member, the report says. It took two male staff members to get Hegseth into the hotel; after one young woman vomited in some bushes, another helped him into bed. In the morning, a team member had to wake Hegseth so that he didn’t miss his flight. “All of this happened in public,” according to the report, while C.V.A. was “embedded” in the Republican get-out-the-vote effort. It went on, “Everyone who saw this was disgusted and in shock that the head of the team was that intoxicated.”

---

Quote:

---

“Congratulations on Removing Pete Hegseth” is the subject line of an e-mail, obtained by The New Yorker, that was sent to Hegseth’s successor as president of the group, Jae Pak, on January 15, 2016. The e-mail, sent under a pseudonym by one of the whistle-blowers, included a copy of the report, and went on to say, “Among the staff, the disgust for Pete was pretty high. Most veterans do not think he represents them nor their high standard of excellence.” The e-mail also stated that Hegseth had “a history of alcohol abuse” and had “treated the organization funds like they were a personal expense account—for partying, drinking, and using CVA events as little more than opportunities to ‘hook up’ with women on the road.”

---

Meh, I don't care if he's a whoremonger and drunk. Trump can just pardon him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

It sounds like he needs help, instead of reinforcement. I hope he gets it. I'm marking this nomination as failed.

---

If that behavior is true, then he should NOT be the SECDEF.

I can understand his issues with drinking and sleeping around, many Vets have similar issues... hell, plenty of normal people do.

But, I hate it when our Politicians get away with such behavior... I wish they would be removed also, but somehow the public just lets it go if the politician is on "their side".

Well, I'm not a hypocrite... and two things can be true at the same time... I like most of what he's publicly stated about the military - it has gone to hell in a hand-basket and needs to be righted...

But if true, his personal issues and such recent proclivities should exclude him from actually an important position IMO.

Now - saying that - I don't know if these things are true or untrue... and given the past 7-8 years of misinformation and attempts to destroy people the "Left" disagrees with... I will wait to pass judgement.

Just look at what they did to Kavanaugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaps

Now - saying that - I don't know if these things are true or untrue... and given the past 7-8 years of misinformation and attempts to destroy people the "Left" disagrees with... I will wait to pass judgement.

---

If you want to read, or in this case listen to, some positive reporting about Hegseth, check out the Nov. 26 episode of The Daily podcast at the below link or on your podcasting app. He showed admirable wisdom as a platoon leader in Iraq. It's quite possible that Hegseth is charismatic and a good combat leader, but in a civilian setting is an abuser of alcohol, misogynist, and poor steward of funds entrusted to him. Secretary of Defense is a civilian job, not a military job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLDHkdnV4XM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLDHkdnV4XM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

in a civilian setting is an abuser of alcohol, misogynist, and poor steward of funds entrusted to him

---

Trump can just pardon him. No biggie.

For Hegseth's sake, I hope he drops out before his Senate hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

For my own chronic butthurt's sake, I hope he drops out before his Senate hearing.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

For Hegseth's sake, I hope he drops out before his Senate hearing.

---

Trump can just pardon him for 10 years. Problem solved.

More about the financial mismanagement by Hegseth..

Quote:

---

During Hegseth’s team in charge, Veterans for Freedom also ran up serious debts. Only one year later, VFF couldn’t afford to pay its creditors, with the group’s donors, Republican billionaires Bernard Marcus, Jerry Perenchio, and Harold Simmons, concerned over what their money was being spent on.

That concern was more than justified, as their money was apparently being spent on wild parties rife with sexual impropriety. The three donors hired a forensic accountant, and Hegseth admitted in January 2008 that the organization had $434,833 in unpaid bills, less than $1,000 in the bank, and credit card debts of as much as $75,000. The donors eventually arranged a merger with another veterans’ organization and drastically reduced Hegseth’s role.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

More about the financial mismanagement by Hegseth..

---

You just voted for someone with $1 billion in campaign funds that somehow ended up $20 million in debt. Stfu you fucking idiot. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

You just voted for someone with $1 billion in campaign funds that somehow ended up $20 million in debt. Stfu you fucking idiot. :rofl:

---

The real number is 2.5 billion. She got 1 billion from when Biden was the candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkk9DI-8el4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

The real number is 2.5 billion. She got 1 billion from when Biden was the candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkk9DI-8el4

---

Oh yeah that's right, my bad. Let me try again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

More about the financial mismanagement by Hegseth..

---

You just voted for someone with $2.5 billion in campaign funds that somehow ended up $20 million in debt. Stfu you fucking idiot. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

You just voted for someone with $1 billion in campaign funds that somehow ended up $20 million in debt. Stfu you fucking idiot. :rofl:

---

It's not 1 billion.

Harris raised 1.4 billion once she was the heir apparent... but she also gained access to 800K in Biden's campaign chest. That's 2.2 billion.

She blew through it all... didn't pay her staff at the end and ended up begging for donors to pony up the 20 million she has in debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

The real number is 2.5 billion. She got 1 billion from when Biden was the candidate.

---

That's 0.8%. Sounds like pretty good budgeting! And yet Certain People voted against Harris. Surely Certain People would not hold 0.8% against Harris and fail to hold Hegseth responsible for misspending veterans' funds for booze and strippers. That would be truly hypocritical, considering that the Secretary of Defense will be responsible for a $916 billion annual budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

That's 0.8%. Sounds like pretty good budgeting! And yet Certain People voted against Harris. Surely Certain People would not hold 0.8% against Harris and fail to hold Hegseth responsible for misspending veterans' funds for booze and strippers. That would be truly hypocritical, considering that the Secretary of Defense will be responsible for a $916 billion annual budget.

---

Only a cLyDeR would believe that Harris blowing through 2+ billion in 100 days is "good budgeting", especially given the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

That's 0.8%. Sounds like pretty good budgeting! And yet Certain People voted against Harris. Surely Certain People would not hold 0.8% against Harris and fail to hold Hegseth responsible for misspending veterans' funds for booze and strippers. That would be truly hypocritical, considering that the Secretary of Defense will be responsible for a $916 billion annual budget.

---

Why are you so retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Why are you so retarded?

---

What do you think the R means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

What do you think the R means?

---

I heard that his full name is ClydeRetardrinsorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

I'm marking this nomination as failed.

---

Looks like I called it exactly right.

Quote:

---

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, drank in ways that concerned his colleagues at Fox News, according to 10 current and former Fox employees who spoke with NBC News.

Two of those people said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth’s time as a co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend,” which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there he appeared on television after they’d heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set.

One of the sources said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as last month and heard him complain about being hungover this fall.

More...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Looks like I called it exactly right.

---

How are you right if Trump isn't even in office yet and the confirmation hasn't begun?

I would ask that you stop being the biggest retard on these forums, but as the Retard Champion, you do you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClydeR

Looks like I called it exactly right.

---

Maybe I will care if he showered with his adult daughter and she writes a book about it.

I fucking love how triggered you are ClydeR. Please keep posting the most retarded shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

I fucking love how triggered you are ClydeR. Please keep posting the most retarded shit.

---

Trump 45 did a number on him.. but it was Trump 47 that REALLY triggered him, making him forget his whole 20+ year schtick and just scream out how much he hates Trumps and MAGA and Republicans.

I bet it was very therapeutic for him to come clean and drop the charade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Trump 45 did a number on him.. but it was Trump 47 that REALLY triggered him, making him forget his whole 20+ year schtick and just scream out how much he hates Trumps and MAGA and Republicans.

I bet it was very therapeutic for him to come clean and drop the charade.

---

ClydeR may just be Trump’s biggest fan. I bet the number of times he Googles “Trump” is only exceeded by the number of masks he puts on his face on any given day.

I want to live in a world where only the communists used women in combat roles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGimaukWKVI