Our Pres is now getting handled around like Biden did towards the end. FIFA president guiding him around by the arm, confused look on Donnies face. Erdogan same thing.

45 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Our Pres is now getting handled around like Biden did towards the end. FIFA president guiding him around by the arm, confused look on Donnies face. Erdogan same thing.

He's old as shit, so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/20/state-dept-again-deems-cuba-threat-amid-talk-us-push-regime-change/

Expect another regime change in the near future orchestrated by the "no new wars" admin. Because we aren't busy enough...

On 7/15/2026 at 6:49 PM, uhhello said:

I'm not understanding the outrage over this. Its pretty funny. How can you spin this into a negative? Getting extra info on annual blood labs is bad? Maybe finding an actual diagnosis for a myriad of symptoms you might be experiencing that have been blown off before? I don't get it. Whats bad about making dudes more capable?
The transgender uproar is comical.

Not a giant fan of Pete but he just joins the long list of shitty SECDEFs over the years.

Yeah this shit is exhausting.

Mainstream media runs with a nothing-burger story because it references Sec Hegseth and the word "Testosterone." And because it has those two things, every one goes wild about it for a week or two until it's forgotten, or overrun by the next nothing-burger story.

Meanwhile, if everyone is so concerned about military member's health, where is the reporting on what Hegseth is doing about actually important shit like nutrition? RFK Jr is the Sec of Health and Human Services, and has come out strong on the detrimental effects of things like seed oils in foods. And it's long been known that the Army DFAC's specifically are all-around shitty. What is Hegseth doing in this arena? He talks about things like increased lethality, and logic would dictate the healthier your force, the more lethal they are, but what is he doing in that respect?

If he's not doing shit, they where is the media caterwauling about that?

On 7/22/2026 at 9:15 AM, Blue said:

Yeah this shit is exhausting.

Mainstream media runs with a nothing-burger story because it references Sec Hegseth and the word "Testosterone." And because it has those two things, every one goes wild about it for a week or two until it's forgotten, or overrun by the next nothing-burger story.

Meanwhile, if everyone is so concerned about military member's health, where is the reporting on what Hegseth is doing about actually important shit like nutrition? RFK Jr is the Sec of Health and Human Services, and has come out strong on the detrimental effects of things like seed oils in foods. And it's long been known that the Army DFAC's specifically are all-around shitty. What is Hegseth doing in this arena? He talks about things like increased lethality, and logic would dictate the healthier your force, the more lethal they are, but what is he doing in that respect?

If he's not doing shit, they where is the media caterwauling about that?

My issue with all this is it’s just performative right wing macho virtue signaling. They’re also starting idiotic force shaping initiatives during a war where they’re gonna need everyone they can get. The mass exodus this Iran debacle is going to cause will be one for the history books. I’ll put my flag in the sand right now and say in 2-3 yrs there will be severe manning shortages in the military.

And while the media is off deep diving on Pete’s low t initiatives that probably only apply to 5% of the force over the age of 40-45, Pete is busy misrepresenting our capabilities and progress to the president wrt the current conflict

15 hours ago, Pooter said:

The mass exodus this Iran debacle is going to cause will be one for the history books. I’ll put my flag in the sand right now and say in 2-3 yrs there will be severe manning shortages in the military.

The Guard and Reserves are gonna have a huge retention problem, IMO. Everyone I know who is retirement eligible is punching the second they can.

It was already a funky math problem to get the numbers to work in the favor of military when compared to current airline pay but, add in never ending deployments in even worse conditions than before with a much higher risk factor in an unpopular conflict with unknown objectives... Yea, I think most people would rather risk being furloughed than that.

And, anecdotally, a lot of my buddies leaving AD aren't even trying for ANG/AFRC jobs. Just straight cut to the airlines.

19 hours ago, StoleIt said:

The Guard and Reserves are gonna have a huge retention problem, IMO. Everyone I know who is retirement eligible is punching the second they can.

It was already a funky math problem to get the numbers to work in the favor of military when compared to current airline pay but, add in never ending deployments in even worse conditions than before with a much higher risk factor in an unpopular conflict with unknown objectives... Yea, I think most people would rather risk being furloughed than that.

And, anecdotally, a lot of my buddies leaving AD aren't even trying for ANG/AFRC jobs. Just straight cut to the airlines.

100%. The only immediate appeal of a guard/res gig for someone punching from AD at their ADSC is the ability to pad a junior airline schedule to get more time at home with the family.

That benefit is completely out the window if the odds are high you’ll get stuck on a combat deployment with no end date

Hey "stocks are up and oil is down"

On 7/20/2026 at 2:21 PM, ClearedHot said:

We just finished a period with a MANDATORY EXPERIMENTAL vaccine...sorry my friend, not a moot point.

I understand your concern, and I share it. But, being in an uproar about T screening is to be against extremely mainstream healthcare in the civ world, and to be linear, you might as well start rallying against HIV testing also (why does 95% of the mil need that…I made that number up, but you get the point). If they start forcing TRT, I’ll pick up a pitch fork next to you. But until then, this was simply media-created rage bait with zero actual substance.

Forcing TRT, pinning total and free T scores against a performance rubric, wing-wide T numbers posted in the daily stand-up...there's all sorts of ways this could lead to fuckery...and yet that doesn't appear to be what's going on.

Instead, it seems SecWar has directed the medical establishment to broaden the routine medical scope to include some important biomarkers, that have been traditionally ignored. Wouldn't be surprised if there are other markers included, but the MSM is target fixated on T because, well, muh patriarchy!!!

The US Govt and DoW have such a great record of doing the right thing... never forcing vaccines or chemicals on soldiers...the government would NEVER do such a thing. Glad I wasn't a soldier at Edgewood Arsenal in the 50's or 60's, unknowingly given LSD and PCP. Or a U.S. soldier in Vietnam swimming in Agent Orange. Or one 60,000 enlisted men enrolled in a once-secret government program — formally declassified in 1993 — to test mustard gas and other chemical agents on American troops. Or one of approximately 235,000 military personnel that participated at one of 230 U. S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945 through 1962.

What problem is he actually trying to solve? Low testosterone is a legitimate medical issue. It can affect energy, mood, bone density, and overall health. Service members who have medical concerns should absolutely have access to proper evaluation and treatment. But testosterone levels are not a measure of military effectiveness. A fighter pilot does not become more capable because of a number on a blood test. A special operator does not become a better warrior because his testosterone level is higher. Leadership, courage, judgment, discipline, technical skill, and the ability to perform under extreme stress are what define combat effectiveness.

This appears less like a readiness initiative and more like a symbolic "macho test" designed to reinforce an image of toughness rather than measure actual performance. Medical data is among the most personal information a service member has. A testosterone number, taken out of context, could become another metric used to unfairly judge, stigmatize, or question the commitment and capability of otherwise outstanding personnel.

Will a pilot with low testosterone be viewed differently during a promotion board? Will a commander subconsciously question the fitness of a highly capable officer or enlisted member based on a medical measurement that has little correlation to combat performance? Could this create pressure for unnecessary treatments or encourage a culture where service members feel compelled to alter their bodies to meet an artificial standard of "warrior masculinity"?

The armed forces already have proven standards: physical fitness tests, weapons qualifications, evaluations, training events, and operational performance. Those are the metrics that tell us whether someone is ready for combat.

The battlefield does not care about testosterone levels. A drone operator, pilot, maintainer, or infantry leader is judged by results — not by a hormone panel.

51 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The US Govt and DoW have such a great record of doing the right thing... never forcing vaccines or chemicals on soldiers...the government would NEVER do such a thing. Glad I wasn't a soldier at Edgewood Arsenal in the 50's or 60's, unknowingly given LSD and PCP. Or a U.S. soldier in Vietnam swimming in Agent Orange. Or one 60,000 enlisted men enrolled in a once-secret government program — formally declassified in 1993 — to test mustard gas and other chemical agents on American troops. Or one of approximately 235,000 military personnel that participated at one of 230 U. S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945 through 1962.

What problem is he actually trying to solve? Low testosterone is a legitimate medical issue. It can affect energy, mood, bone density, and overall health. Service members who have medical concerns should absolutely have access to proper evaluation and treatment. But testosterone levels are not a measure of military effectiveness. A fighter pilot does not become more capable because of a number on a blood test. A special operator does not become a better warrior because his testosterone level is higher. Leadership, courage, judgment, discipline, technical skill, and the ability to perform under extreme stress are what define combat effectiveness.

This appears less like a readiness initiative and more like a symbolic "macho test" designed to reinforce an image of toughness rather than measure actual performance. Medical data is among the most personal information a service member has. A testosterone number, taken out of context, could become another metric used to unfairly judge, stigmatize, or question the commitment and capability of otherwise outstanding personnel.

Will a pilot with low testosterone be viewed differently during a promotion board? Will a commander subconsciously question the fitness of a highly capable officer or enlisted member based on a medical measurement that has little correlation to combat performance? Could this create pressure for unnecessary treatments or encourage a culture where service members feel compelled to alter their bodies to meet an artificial standard of "warrior masculinity"?

The armed forces already have proven standards: physical fitness tests, weapons qualifications, evaluations, training events, and operational performance. Those are the metrics that tell us whether someone is ready for combat.

The battlefield does not care about testosterone levels. A drone operator, pilot, maintainer, or infantry leader is judged by results — not by a hormone panel.

My guess (I'm purely speculating) is that this is tied to Hegseth's weird focus on cosplaying being a SOF user (reference all the videos of him working out with SOF, riding the side of a Little Bird all kitted out, there's multiple examples). A sizeable percentage of the ground SOF guys I worked with on staff were taking testosterone shots since as they got older it got harder to keep up with the physical demands of their job (not the pushing CONOPs or PPT part lol). It probably came up in conversation during one of his made for DVIDS PT sessions and here we are, testing for all my friends. I'm not weighing in on the right vs wrong or logic of it all, just where I think the roots lie.

I don't need to tell you since I know you worked in the 5 sided puzzle palace but the main thing that should come out of the Pentagon/DoD is budget and policy. Hegseth is really struggling with the first piece and IMO a good chunk (though not all) of the second piece he seems to focus on odd issues that are probably below the purview of the SecDef. But he's loyal, looks good on TV during Senate hearings, and uses the word lethality a lot so POTUS will probably keep him around. Unless this Iran thing really falls off the cliff and Trump needs a fall guy.

Edited 9 minutes ago9 min by DirkDiggler
Clarity