Trump's Cabinet

[brabus]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Have you watched the actual video Hegseth posted?  Go to 3:26, the executive pastor in that video calls for the 19th amendment to be repealed.

I did, twice. The one guy (not the main pastor) said he would support the repeal. The other guy (not the main pastor) gave an interesting take on one vote per household, which is in line with our representative form of gov. Interesting thought, not saying I support it, would have to think on that more. The interviewer was also very hostile towards them and tried to put words in their mouth constantly (shocking), and those “words” are being portrayed in media as the dudes’ words without any context/what their responses to correct those words were.

On a quick voting tangent, I do think we need to put some better guardrails up. I’m not talking 19A repeal or only “white male landowners,” but things like you have to pay taxes and pay  mortgage or rent could be good requirements (in addition to passing a basic civics test).

Personally I think everything you quoted from Hegseth regarding dads vs moms and women in combat roles has merit. He’s not wrong about men and women being equally important humans, but with different strengths and roles. The real question is if he truly doesn’t support women even being in finance, ARMS, AFE, etc. That does not make sense, but he has not directly stated that - someone should ask him at a press conference.  

 

[ClearedHot]

21 minutes ago, brabus said:

I did, twice. The one guy (not the main pastor) said he would support the repeal. The other guy (not the main pastor) gave an interesting take on one vote per household, which is in line with our representative form of gov. Interesting thought, not saying I support it, would have to think on that more. The interviewer was also very hostile towards them and tried to put words in their mouth constantly (shocking), and those “words” are being portrayed in media as the dudes’ words without any context/what their responses to correct those words were.

On a quick voting tangent, I do think we need to put some better guardrails up. I’m not talking 19A repeal or only “white male landowners,” but things like you have to pay taxes and pay  mortgage or rent could be good requirements (in addition to passing a basic civics test).

Personally I think everything you quoted from Hegseth regarding dads vs moms and women in combat roles has merit. He’s not wrong about men and women being equally important humans, but with different strengths and roles. The real question is if he truly doesn’t support women even being in finance, ARMS, AFE, etc. That does not make sense, but he has not directly stated that - someone should ask him at a press conference.  

 

The great thing about our country, we all get to disagree and still be friends.  Also, we all get a voice....well unless as you believe you are poor and don't pay taxes.

As far as women versus men in combat roles...two of the three best IPs I ever flew with were women and could fly circles around a lot of men.  I prefer to have a standard rather than a gender test.

[Boomer6]

What about allowing devout Muslims or Mormons in command positions? Both of those religions view women (and non-whites for Mormons) in a way that is contrary to modern western thinking. I don't think the DoD is barring followers of those faiths from leadership positions.

[Day Man]

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

could fly circles around a lot of men. 

[disgruntledemployee]

13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Gender differences ≠ Racial differences. So let's just skip that diversion. 

 

We already discriminate based on gender in the military. And we should. The extent to which we do so is a valid debate. Also, reposting something does not equal endorsing every word of an interview. As I said, I wish our leaders wouldn't post/repost/share anything, but they do. 

 

If Hegseth says he believes women should not serve, then you have a point. Hell, if he refuses to answer, even then you have a point. Right now you do not.

It's time to change this bullshit idea that reposting something gets you out of not actually saying it.  You post it, own it. 

And the rest of your post is chaff/flare.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

What about allowing devout Muslims or Mormons in command positions? Both of those religions view women (and non-whites for Mormons) in a way that is contrary to modern western thinking. I don't think the DoD is barring followers of those faiths from leadership positions.

I believe it is a bit more nuanced.  

Summarize it this way, believe what you want but obey the law.  If in a position of authority or command and you openly express that tripe advocating to discriminate...you should be removed.  Our system is not perfect and obviously hard to say what is in their heart.

We had a pilot in the gunship community who was a devout Mormon.  He made a big deal about flying with women a few times in training and they body checked him.  He refused to fly with a female co-pilot in combat so he got sent home and was removed from the community with an LOR.  Big Blue USAF of course kept him and sent him to be a UPT IP (I am sure the women that flew with him loved that).

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

It's time to change this bullshit idea that reposting something gets you out of not actually saying it.  You post it, own it. 

And the rest of your post is chaff/flare.

Yeah but here's the thing, no one gives a shit what you think it's time for. Or what I think it's time for. 

 

The simple reality is that people do not use social media that way. And the busier the person is, the more likely they are to repost something that they only watched or read 5% of.

 

I don't have to like it, I just have to be intelligent enough to realize it. Or conversely, you can spend all day thinking that you're superior to everyone in power simply because no one deemed you worthy of the amount of attention or responsibility our leaders have. You of all people should be grateful that our internet lives are not the exclusive basis by which we are judged. I sure am.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Lord Ratner

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

I believe it is a bit more nuanced.  

Summarize it this way, believe what you want but obey the law. 

This is why I don't think it's more nuanced. Has he broken the law in relation to women in the military, no? Does he hold an opinion contrary to common Western values, yes.

Your Mormon example is apples to oranges. I'm talking about a leader that holds beliefs contrary to common western values. In your example an individual wouldn't do the job, easy kill. I'm talking about a commander with a specific set of values that doesn't align with common Western beliefs.