Pete Hegseth is pulling HUNDREDS of top officers from the Field to a meeting in Quantico and won't say why.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I agree. Brandon was incompetent and the worst POTUS ever.

Biden got the infrastructure bill PASSED that Trump kept promising but could NEVER DELIVER.

Under Trump it was just a RUNNING JOKE, like you.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Who's policies are making the nation he's president of, better after 4 years of Brandon.

Inflation is UP again, and going higher since Trump LIED about who pays HIS Tariffs.

And Trump's polls are in the Dumper on all issues. As is the Republican Congress.

That's why they are panicking and sending soldiers to the cities to disrupt the coming election. 🤮

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Cry me a river.

Brandon was the worst POTUS in history.!

Not by approval ratings. FAR FROM IT.

Trump's got that one by a MILE.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Deluginal...  why do I need to remind you of the subject you brought up then avoided?

Well, let's recap:

- I said women belong in the home, building strong families, not squaring off with men. 

- You flew into a hissy fit and asked whether I was a misogynist or a chauvinist. 

- I said I was neither, and you stamped your feet and shit your diapers because I wasn't playing right. lol

- You babbled some shit about your opinion and other women's opinions being fact. 

- I threw your absurdity back in your face and proceeded with MY question. 

Now, are you going to be a man and answer the question, or are you going to just stand there, sucking your thumb? 

 

[herbie]

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They are purging the fat guys that aren't war fighters. 

Yes, the Pillsbury Doughboy in the White House has stunted thinking like that.

He also prepped them to fight against the Enemy Within. 

Edited October 1, 2025 by herbie

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Inflation is UP again, and going higher since Trump LIED about who pays HIS Tariffs.

And Trump's polls are in the Dumper on all issues. As is the Republican Congress.

That's why they are panicking and sending soldiers to the cities to disrupt the coming election. 🤮

Not by approval ratings. FAR FROM IT.

Trump's got that one by a MILE.

Trump - 43% approval 

Brandon last rating - 36% approval 

Try again Tweenkie-Poo.

 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Trump - 43% approval 

Brandon last rating - 36% approval 

Try again Tweenkie-Poo.

 

You picking rotten cherries does not make them good.

Average Job Approval for Biden Only Better Than Trump’s

[Legato]

This thread seems to be about bearded fat men defending bearded fat men in the military.

[Venandi]

18 hours ago, Hodad said:

Will the current Commander-in-Chief be resigning then? 

Will the Governor General?

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

Got news for you,

No, I think little of that is actually relevant news for anyone who spent more than 10 minutes doing the do.

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hegseth moved quickly to fire women and people of color and replace them with objectively less qualified white men.

An interesting (but reverse by design) perspective on observed recruiting challenges / statistics .

The recruiting band for the military, policing, firefighting, and EHS is relatively narrow and it's (mostly)limited to age appropriate candidates that are ready, willing and able to be recruited when called upon. 

Those four factors are governing if you chose to recruit based on merit  and sadly it represents only about 7% of the population but there are women and people of colour in the group based (I think) on per capita representation within the 7% group . You can expand beyond that in the name of DEI but you lose something in the process... and it will always show up in one of the four parameters.

As a for instance, I'm fully trained and still ready, willing, and able... but for how much longer? The age appropriate thing throws me out of the running unless you're willing to stipulate that POOF...I'm suddenly 25 years old simply because "I feel like I am."

Here's an analogy I think is relevant:

Imagine if the NBA decided there were too many black players in the league and insisted that 50% of every team had to be made up of white guys.  Since tall black men are statistically the best basketball players in the world, would the standard of play be increased or decreased as a result of the directive? And is talent, ability and a high standard of play the objective?

Then ... if you suddenly changed recruiting parameters back to merit based criteria, what would the makeup of the teams become overnight? Is the new result racist or is it simply a function of the recruiting band? What is the objective here, is it a high standard of play or is it inclusiveness for the sake of diversity because I don't think you can aspire to both at the same time.

The recruiting band (of basketball excellence) isn't based on race, religion or any other non-competency based parameters, IMO, white guys in the NBA aren't there simply because they happen to be white

Are they?

Should they be? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2025 by Venandi

[Venandi]

8 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

And unfortunately had to settle for a depraved ex-reality TV star...

I would have gladly supported a trade... they would have had to keep JT as part of the deal though.

Edited October 1, 2025 by Venandi

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

For the sissy-boys who have been venting their pure hatred here...

Peter Brian Hegseth served 2 deployments in the military. One in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He attained the rank of Major. He has 2 degrees. One from Princeton and one from Harvard. 

Pete Hegseth is well qualified and has more guts and honor than any of you Libbie trash.

Have a warm and fuzzy day.

IF he were really "well qualified" he would not have been FIRED from TWO assignments managing SMALL veteran's businesses that he BANKRUPTED.

Now the DoD is easily 1000 times LARGER and you pretend he is qualified to run it.

What VERY LARGE ORGNAIZATION HAVE YOU MANAGED? LMAO

Edited October 1, 2025 by robosmith

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Will the Governor General?

No, I think you have little in the way of relevant news for anyone who spent more than 10 minutes doing the do.

An interesting (but reverse by design) perspective on observed recruiting challenges / statistics .

The recruiting band for the military, policing, firefighting, and EHS is relatively narrow and it's (mostly)limited to age appropriate candidates that are ready, willing and able to be recruited when called upon. 

Those four factors are governing if you chose to recruit based on merit  and sadly it represents only about 7% of the population but there are women and people of colour in the group based (I think) on per capita representation within the 7% group . You can expand beyond that in the name of DEI but you lose something in the process... and it will always show up in one of the four parameters.

As a for instance, I'm fully trained and still ready, willing, and able... but for how much longer? The age appropriate thing throws me out of the running unless you're willing to stipulate that POOF...I'm suddenly 25 years old simply because "I feel like I am."

Here's an analogy I think is relevant:

Imagine if the NBA decided there were too many black players in the league and insisted that 50% of every team had to be made up of white guys.  Since tall black men are statistically the best basketball players in the world, would the standard of play be increased or decreased as a result of the directive? And is talent, ability and a high standard of play the objective?

Then ... if you suddenly changed recruiting parameters back to merit based criteria, what would the makeup of the teams become overnight? Is the new result racist or is it simply a function of the recruiting band? What is the objective here, is it a high standard of play or is it inclusiveness for the sake of diversity because I don't think you can aspire to both at the same time.

The recruiting band (of basketball excellence) isn't based on race, religion or any other non-competency based parameters, IMO, white guys in the NBA aren't there simply because they happen to be white

Are they?

Should they be? 

 

Except TWO of the NBA's MOST TALENTED PLAYERS right now are white men.

Luka Dončić and Nikola Jokić are easily the top players at their positions.

[Hodad]

18 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Will the Governor General?

No, I think you have little in the way of relevant news for anyone who spent more than 10 minutes doing the do.

An interesting (but reverse by design) perspective on observed recruiting challenges / statistics .

The recruiting band for the military, policing, firefighting, and EHS is relatively narrow and it's (mostly)limited to age appropriate candidates that are ready, willing and able to be recruited when called upon. 

Those four factors are governing if you chose to recruit based on merit  and sadly it represents only about 7% of the population but there are women and people of colour in the group based (I think) on per capita representation within the 7% group . You can expand beyond that in the name of DEI but you lose something in the process... and it will always show up in one of the four parameters.

As a for instance, I'm fully trained and still ready, willing, and able... but for how much longer? The age appropriate thing throws me out of the running unless you're willing to stipulate that POOF...I'm suddenly 25 years old simply because "I feel like I am."

Here's an analogy I think is relevant:

Imagine if the NBA decided there were too many black players in the league and insisted that 50% of every team had to be made up of white guys.  Since tall black men are statistically the best basketball players in the world, would the standard of play be increased or decreased as a result of the directive? And is talent, ability and a high standard of play the objective?

Then ... if you suddenly changed recruiting parameters back to merit based criteria, what would the makeup of the teams become overnight? Is the new result racist or is it simply a function of the recruiting band? What is the objective here, is it a high standard of play or is it inclusiveness for the sake of diversity because I don't think you can aspire to both at the same time.

The recruiting band (of basketball excellence) isn't based on race, religion or any other non-competency based parameters, IMO, white guys in the NBA aren't there simply because they happen to be white

Are they?

Should they be? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're talking about fantasy hypotheticals. There are no gender or race quotas in the US military. Nor have there been, not since integration for women and people of color. 

And the point that you people consistently misunderstand about diversity in teams is that it's consistently correlated with higher performing teams? Why? Because there is no "best" template of a service member in the same way that there is no "best" template of a basketball player. Point guards, shooting guards, small/power forwards and centers are all bringing diverse attributes and skillsets to make a better overall team. Diverse teams work better. Always have. 

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Except TWO of the NBA's MOST TALENTED PLAYERS right now are white men.

And EQUALLY relevant IS the FACT that THE square OF a PLANET'S orbital PERIOD is PROPORTIONAL to THE cube OF the LENGTH of THE semi-MAJOR axis OF its ORBIT. 

So.... there ya go.

[robosmith]

47 minutes ago, Venandi said:

And EQUALLY relevant IS the FACT that THE square OF a PLANET'S orbital PERIOD is PROPORTIONAL to THE cube OF the LENGTH of THE semi-MAJOR axis OF its ORBIT. 

So.... there ya go.

The point that went over your head is that white players are VERY competitive (or better) so mandating 50% white on teams is completely reasonable as far as skills.

Edited October 2, 2025 by robosmith

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The point that went over your head is that white players are VERY competitive (or better) so mandating 50% white on teams is completely reasonable as far as skills.

How many women play in the NBA? 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

 

Quote

 

  4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Except TWO of the NBA's MOST TALENTED PLAYERS right now are white men.

 

 

And EQUALLY relevant IS the FACT that THE square OF a PLANET'S orbital PERIOD is PROPORTIONAL to THE cube OF the LENGTH of THE semi-MAJOR axis OF its ORBIT. 

So.... there ya go.

 Dammit - I KNEW there was a connection there..... 

[LinkSoul60]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Cry me a river.

Brandon was the worst POTUS in history.!

Why would I cry... just sayin

I agree 'Brandon' wasn't a consequential president. This new guy will for sure be consequential for many reasons and none of which will be known throughout history as good. Call him better than 'Brandon' if you like, but he's still utterly incompetent.

Edited October 2, 2025 by LinkSoul60

[LinkSoul60]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

I would have gladly supported a trade... they would have had to keep JT as part of the deal though.

No trade... all in for letting JT go there, but don't want/need compensation.

[Hodad]

17 hours ago, Nationalist said:

For the sissy-boys who have been venting their pure hatred here...

Peter Brian Hegseth served 2 deployments in the military. One in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He attained the rank of Major. He has 2 degrees. One from Princeton and one from Harvard. 

Pete Hegseth is well qualified and has more guts and honor than any of you Libbie trash.

Have a warm and fuzzy day.

Oh, for farks sake, "Peter Brian Hegseth" (invoking the full name is a delightful fanboy touch) had never led any organization larger than a handful of people--and not successfully. He *might* be qualified to be a middle manager in corporate America, and that's if we're being really generous. 

In no way, shape or form is he even remotely qualified to lead an organization of 2 million people and control $800+ billion dollars of taxpayer money. 

He is, however, excellent at fawning over Trump, and that's the #1 thing Trump looks for in his "best people." 

The Hegseth appointment was malpractice--a joke--and shows Trump's profound disrespect for the military and the citizenry. Entrusting a million lives and and nearly a trillion dollars to an alcoholic abuser of women without a viable resume? Well, that's gone just about as well as expected.

And the absolute irony of him talking about a merit-based military is farking stunning. 

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

You picking rotten cherries does not make them good.

Average Job Approval for Biden Only Better Than Trump’s

Speaking of rotten cherries...

From your own article 

Brandon - 42%

Trump current - 43%

You can have your own opinion, but you cant have your own truth.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Why would I cry... just sayin

I agree 'Brandon' wasn't a consequential president. This new guy will for sure be consequential for many reasons and none of which will be known throughout history as good. Call him better than 'Brandon' if you like, but he's still utterly incompetent.

Yet...the border is closed...wars are being cut off at the knees...and the bonus...

Trump forces you Libbies to lie constantly. 

Not bad for 9 months eh?

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

You're talking about fantasy hypotheticals. There are no gender or race quotas in the US military. Nor have there been, not since integration for women and people of color. 

And the point that you people consistently misunderstand about diversity in teams is that it's consistently correlated with higher performing teams? Why? Because there is no "best" template of a service member in the same way that there is no "best" template of a basketball player. Point guards, shooting guards, small/power forwards and centers are all bringing diverse attributes and skillsets to make a better overall team. Diverse teams work better. Always have. 

The target vs quota debate....

There's clearly a substantive difference between the two when discussed rationally but when set as a target or in the form of objectives to be met (not quotas per se) they prove difficult to achieve while maintaining existing competency standards.

The CF target of 25% women by 2026 is tough because the recruiting band I mentioned (above) typically isn't composed of 25% women; you have to go outside the band and when you do that competency (in the form of able and ready) typically becomes an issue to be overcome.

One of the difficulties here (and a hard one to address IMO) comes down to interest (the willingness factor). I know a number of athletic young ladies who would be prime candidates for a variety of military occupations, and even though they qualify as age appropriate ready and able, they simply aren't interested (or willing). I also know women who serve in the navy and "go to sea" but outside that cadre, I don't know a single (non military) women who wants to join the navy and spend 6 months of the year on a ship. It makes meeting targets within a narrow band of the population pretty challenging. 

I've had this conversation with people before and usually the missing link is recognizing the challenges that are associated with that ready / willing / able side of the equation. Finding people who meet two of the parameters is easy, all three typically isn't and it leads to the idea that we can expand the band and organically create / train (over time) the missing component(s)...  usually either ready or able (often both). A noble idea I guess but it hasn't worked out to well so far.

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

diversity in teams is that it's consistently correlated with higher performing teams?

Very true, but in practice it only applies in presence of competencies that are not adjusted simply to achieve the diversity you (quite rightly BTW) hope to achieve. 

In short, I'm guessing you think I'm attacking the idea... and I'm actually not. I'm suggesting that the implementation has been largely dysfunctional for a variety of reasons. 

All of this could be a 50 page thread but I'll try to summarize the challenge with a simple question: How many young fit women of your acquaintance (and I mean all of them) actually aspire to join the infantry and become paratroopers? I don't know any but I've heard of a few that we lost to policing due to recruiting / training delays. 

That's the first thing I'd be fixing and that's a huge challenge due to manning levels. Balancing recruiting, retention and operational tempo is a critical factor in all of this and that equation is way out of balance. I haven't looked at female attrition in a while but I'd hazard to guess that still poses a similar challenge to recruiting... it makes something as simple as maintaining the status quo more difficult than many would think.

All IMO of course.

 

Edited October 2, 2025 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

... there is no "best" template of a service member in the same way that there is no "best" template of a basketball player. Point guards, shooting guards, small/power forwards and centers are all bringing diverse attributes and skillsets to make a better overall team. Diverse teams work better. Always have. 

That's wise. 

The point is also being made that people would sacrifice standards to reach targets, but I'm not sure that that's true. 

It's heartening to read the odd post that considers different points of view openly and objectively. Thank you.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Oh, for farks sake, "Peter Brian Hegseth" (invoking the full name is a delightful fanboy touch) had never led any organization larger than a handful of people--and not successfully. He *might* be qualified to be a middle manager in corporate America, and that's if we're being really generous. 

In no way, shape or form is he even remotely qualified to lead an organization of 2 million people and control $800+ billion dollars of taxpayer money. 

He is, however, excellent at fawning over Trump, and that's the #1 thing Trump looks for in his "best people." 

The Hegseth appointment was malpractice--a joke--and shows Trump's profound disrespect for the military and the citizenry. Entrusting a million lives and and nearly a trillion dollars to an alcoholic abuser of women without a viable resume? Well, that's gone just about as well as expected.

And the absolute irony of him talking about a merit-based military is farking stunning. 

 

 

[Venandi]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The point is also being made that people would sacrifice standards to reach targets, but I'm not sure that that's true. 

Hi Michael... sometimes there's more to it than simply maintaining standards because there are other military centric issues that often escape notice.

If you look at women serving with the Navy as an example, it doesn't work to simply allow volunteers in small numbers even though it might seem like a good idea. It actually takes an entire ships company to fight the beast, since you can't leave under manned and since mixed mess decks aren't an option (or at least they weren't when I was around) you're left with a problem.

If the smallest mess deck is 15 people, that means that 6 female volunteers doesn't work and you need to find 9 more. As you can imagine, pressing 9 unwilling women into service in generic trades like supply, admin, a/c maintenance etc challenges personnel retention efforts. I'm actually laughing as I type because it's a massive understatement... it can bludgeon your retention efforts.

By way of example I'd offer the challenge of finding a female doctor on one 5 month naval deployment I was on. Two female MOs quit before the third was pressed into service. She did a great job, there was absolutely no issue with competency at all... but at the end of it she said "never fuc&^%$ again."

Not sure how you overcome that but it illustrates the nature of the recruiting band I referred to. I did several deployments with the Navy and I'd go again if they'd let me... she was way smarter than me but you can bet she wouldn't.

Competency is one piece of the puzzle but it really is a 50 page issue and I realize that any single post I could ever make is easily countered with a series of "ya buts." Unfortunately though you have to dive deep into the weeds to see it all in a military context and understand why the efforts to date have been problematic.

Edited October 2, 2025 by Venandi