Pete Hegseth Secretary of Defense
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
He said he had respect for women serving in the armed forces. He dislikes them serving in direct combat units.
No, anything remotely tied to Trump, you automatically dismiss due to your devoted stance against him. You have Zero human understanding, once the name Trump is even inferred, simply made up in your mind or let alone out rightly mentioned. We ALLLLLLLLLLLLL get it. I've never asked, but is Liz Cheney your wife? or girlfriend that you haven't told your wife about? yet? Now, are you 100% cart Blanche approving that women should be in front line combat, no restrictions, no equal qual's? Dude, you hate trump and hope he fails, we all get it.
Joe, you've been embarrassing yourself for some time now. You need to chill the f*ck out and start making some sense.
He said what he had to to get Joni's vote. And she fell for it.
He needs to get a job. Any job. Just something to get him out of the house and away from the Cooler for a bit.
Well, there should be plenty of jobs available in a few weeks when we deport all those immigrants.
He will get out of committee but it will be straight party line vote
Sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, and mismanagement of veterans' service organizations isn't enough, I take it.
What part of that wasn't chill? Simply laid out, easy to follow, nothing aggressive. How much have you drank tonight? Do you really want to throw stones? Maybe you should chill the fvck out? He hates trump and therefore anyone associated with Trump. Do you agree with that part at least?
He was lying yesterday, he was being truthful previously.
I don’t know what Ernst was so bent out of shape about. She was in a transportation company.
No doubt. I was hoping Ernst would take a stand, which would give cover for Collins and Murkowski.
I listened to the entire hearing and he disavowed those statements and said they could serve in combat jobs. He said they had to meet the required standards.
I was a long-time opponent of women serving in combat units, including warships. However, that genie isn’t going back in the bottle. I agree with Hegseth’s hearing position that if they serve in combat jobs they have to meet the same physical standards. That wasn’t his position before he was nominated though.
Last edited:
I tried. They all said there was some Napa guy spreading false info about me. So then I went back to my interest and investment gains. And started reading the cooler again.
Farva, I'm putting you on notice: you have until Friday to fix your handle/account. I will continue approving your posts until Friday. After that, I'm banning your current handle if it's not been straightened out.
So you have had the same possible stances as Pete, and that is totally understandable for you, but not him. Ok, that checks out.
Wrong again. I have zero problem with all but a handful of his nominees so far. I evaluate them individually. As everyone should. Your devotion to Trump prevents you from doing that.
You also got my position on women in combat jobs wrong too. No surprise there. No one gets me as wrong as you do over and over again.
So after Friday, he can be "Don'tcomearoundmuchanymoreagain"?
It only seems fine to men☆ such as you.
To those of us who have walked that line, it's wide as the Rubicon.
L
Love ya Joe, but is there any chance you've let the wrong head do your thinkin' on a couple of occasions?
I know. As far as I know there was not one question from any Democrat about how Hegseth would make important decisions as SecDef. All questions were about accusations of various behaviors. If the FBI substantiated any of that, the Dems would have leaked it or asked about the FBI report.
The Rubicon is basically a stream. With good headstart you can jump over it.
You can’t understand plain English. Yes, I agree with his position as stated in the hearing. The point is that that was NOT his position prior to his nomination. Was he lying then or lying now? I don’t know. Neither do you.
There is no less than a 100% chance. BUT they tricked me into it! I swear!
It may not be me with comprehension issues. You stated yourself that you once were opposition of women in combat roles, but then admitted that "that genie isn't going back in the bottle". So inherently you and Pete just may be on the exact even keel on this point.
FTR, I am totally for Women having the opportunity. But due to the demanding requirements, they have to prove the physical capability/ equivalency. Thats the same as my fat ass thinking I could fight my way out of a walmart flash sale mob.
It was stated more than once that the background investigation was incomplete. His behavior and judgment are important. We know that he was still married to his 2nd wife and his future 3rd wife was pregnant with his child when he had sex (he says consensual) with the woman in Monterey. That’s pathetically poor judgment. It’s also a crime under the UCMJ. To me he lacks the judgment, character and relevant experience for the job.
You’re free to firm your own opinion.
My position of 15 to 20 years ago was no women in combat. His position from a couple of months ago was no women in combat. That’s not an evolving position, it’s a rapid reversal. He was lying then or lying now. This is simple, don’t make it hard.
So you are admitting that he learns faster than you. Maybe that is why is is about to be SecDef. Maybe not though. ??
@Aloha Hoosier , You do understand that I enjoy arguing with you, right? I don't do it out of disrespect, I look forward to it for fun. Now piss off old man! hahahahaha
Similar threads
