Looks like the Hegseth nomination is doomed despite the 100 Navy Seals coming to Washington "to ensure he's confirmed."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5025...on-doomed/

GOP senators say President-elect Trump is letting Hegseth twist in the wind and even appeared to undermine his nomination by floating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® as a possible replacement nominee to head the Pentagon.

Republican senators say Trump isn’t making calls to GOP senators to save Hegseth’s floundering nomination and instead is throwing more ballast onto a sinking ship by floating DeSantis as a replacement.

DeSantis, a Navy judge advocate general who is a member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, would easily win confirmation, the GOP source said.

“Where is all of this stuff about DeSantis coming from? That’s all coming out of Mar-a-Lago,” the first GOP senator who spoke to The Hill said.

---

Looks like the Hegseth nomination is doomed despite the 100 Navy Seals coming to Washington "to ensure he's confirmed." 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5025...on-doomed/

GOP senators say President-elect Trump is letting Hegseth twist in the wind and even appeared to undermine his nomination by floating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® as a possible replacement nominee to head the Pentagon.

Republican senators say Trump isn’t making calls to GOP senators to save Hegseth’s floundering nomination and instead is throwing more ballast onto a sinking ship by floating DeSantis as a replacement.

DeSantis, a Navy judge advocate general who is a member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, would easily win confirmation, the GOP source said.

“Where is all of this stuff about DeSantis coming from? That’s all coming out of Mar-a-Lago,” the first GOP senator who spoke to The Hill said.

This the impression I get. My guess it’s because Hegseth may not have been fully forthcoming about potential scandals in his past. I think our Guv makes a better candidate anyway.

---

Why is it impossible to get a break from this crap?
Nobody cares about those people,I’ve literally never seen one in Jax..
but so many conversations especially about politics dwindles down to them.crazy!

---

Why is it impossible to get a break from this crap?
Nobody cares about those people,I’ve literally never seen one in Jax..

---

Why is it impossible to get a break from this crap?
Nobody cares about those people,I’ve literally never seen one in Jax..
but so many conversations especially about politics dwindle down to them.crazy!

Because the decisions they make can affect all of us.

---

I personally don't care who gets the nod because whoever it is, is going to be head and shoulders 100× better than whatever trash Biden installed.. I'm more excited to see these trash rinos oust themselves so they can be primaried.. No bigger cowards in the country in my opinion.

---

Example A

https://twitter.com/ProudElephantUS/stat...fvoqQ&s=19

---

That's not entirely true. 

Link

According to military law experts, DoD Directive 1344.10 dictates whether active-duty military members can participate in political activities, including protests and rallies.

That directive, they say, does allow military members to personally engage in partisan activities, including writing letters to the editor for or against a specific candidate or attending events as spectators out of uniform.

But it blocks them from leading or actively participating in those events, publishing partisan political statements outside of a letter to the editor, speaking at any political gathering or soliciting votes.

I wouldn't want active military engaged in rallies or demonstrations.  Imagine if the January 6 protestors who invaded the Capitol had been active military and armed, organized and led by their officers.

Thus one reason why they are allowed to be spectators only, not active participants, and never in uniform. Regardless of the reason for a political event it would not be a good idea for an active duty service member(s) to show up in uniform.

---

I wouldn't want active military engaged in rallies or demonstrations.  Imagine if the January 6 protestors who invaded the Capitol had been active military and armed, organized and led by their officers.

Thus one reason why they are allowed to be spectators only, not active participants, and never in uniform. Regardless of the reason for a political event it would not be a good idea for an active duty service member(s) to show up in uniform.

Glad we agree.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why is it impossible to get a break from this crap?
Nobody cares about those people,I’ve literally never seen one in Jax..
but so many conversations especially about politics dwindles down to them.crazy!

You're in the wrong place if you want a break from this crap. You are in the political section of this message board. *shrugs*

And as previously pointed out you should care because those people literally affect your life by policies enacted or taken away. If you don't vote in local elections you're just as much part of the problem as 'those people' you don't care about.

---

You’re trying hard to miss that point. He is saying you are fine with a soft coup as opposed to a violent one.

A coup is a coup.

So the question is, would I prefer transgenders in the military to a violent military coup?  Is that the question?  He did use the word "prefer."  So yes, if my choice was between transgender people in the military or a violent military coup, I would have to choose the former.  Wouldn't you?

You’re trying hard to miss that point. He is saying you are fine with a soft coup as opposed to a violent one.

A coup is a coup.

Are you implying that transgender soldiers and officers are inherently illegitimate and not duly appointed or enlisted?

It is interesting that both of you see that meme as transgenders in the military and I see it as coup of identity politics over finding qualified people.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

So the question is, would I prefer transgenders in the military to a violent military coup?  Is that the question?  He did use the word "prefer."  So yes, if my choice was between transgender people in the military or a violent military coup, I would have to choose the former.  Wouldn't you?

Are you implying that transgender soldiers and officers are inherently illegitimate and not duly appointed or enlisted?

It is interesting that both of you see that meme as transgenders in the military and I see it as coup of identity politics over finding qualified people.

Don't use the word coup like that.
If we are talking anything military-adjacent, the word coup only means one thing.  It means military leaders taking down civilian leaders.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It is interesting that both of you see that meme as transgenders in the military and I see it as coup of identity politics over finding qualified people.

Don't use the word coup like that.
If we are talking anything military-adjacent, the word coup only means one thing.  It means military leaders taking down civilian leaders.

Factually correct but still avoiding the actual point.  Why do I bother?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

That's not entirely true. 

Link

According to military law experts, DoD Directive 1344.10 dictates whether active-duty military members can participate in political activities, including protests and rallies.

That directive, they say, does allow military members to personally engage in partisan activities, including writing letters to the editor for or against a specific candidate or attending events as spectators out of uniform.

But it blocks them from leading or actively participating in those events, publishing partisan political statements outside of a letter to the editor, speaking at any political gathering or soliciting votes.

I wouldn't want active military engaged in rallies or demonstrations.  Imagine if the January 6 protestors who invaded the Capitol had been active military and armed, organized and led by their officers.

The thing is, that would be illegal (from a military standpoint).

Military members may participate in political activities while out of uniform and can not use their military title publicly when doing so.  Also, as a former enlisted military member myself, I would not follow orders by any officers when in a civilian setting like that.  They have no authority.  Finally, military or not it is illegal to be armed on federal property.  As a concealed permit holder if I walked into a post office with my sidearm I would be breaking federal law.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Don't use the word coup like that.
If we are talking anything military-adjacent, the word coup only means one thing.  It means military leaders taking down civilian leaders.

Factually correct but still avoiding the actual point.  Why do I bother?

January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Factually correct but still avoiding the actual point.  Why do I bother?

January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

Is that like saying that Biden didn't select Kamala as VP because she's a "black" woman? Because you know for a fact he did because he even said he was.. 

He dumped all of his woke DEI bull [BLEEP] on us so he can appease his masters and our country took the fall for it.. And you [BLEEP] know it.

---

Nono I’m not talking about people involved in politics,
You are absolutely right,I decided to browse this section just like I did my best to make an educated vote the last election.
I’m talking about the transgender people because somebody brought them up into this conversation.
I hear so much about them and I feel like so many conversations about politics come down to them and I don’t really understand why and what’s the point?Are they really that big an issue?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in Jax..
I feel like we have many bigger problems to work on?

Transgenderism is a mental Illness and you do not want the mentally ill making militaristic decisions the same way you wouldn't let one babysit your child.

---

January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

Is that like saying that Biden didn't select Kamala as VP because she's a "black" woman? Because you know for a fact he did because he even said he was.. 

He dumped all of his woke DEI bull [BLEEP] on us so he can appease his masters and our country took the fall for it.. And you [BLEEP] know it.

Yes, Biden selected Kamala Harris to be VP because she is a black woman.  And that's the problem with identity politics and affirmative action, DEI, whatever you want to call it.  When we do stuff like that, every single hiring or promotion is subject to the suspicion that it was done for a reason other than merit.  Hiring and promotions should be based on merit and nothing else.  

But what Stroudcrowd said was that apparently, I would prefer [however you want to characterize that picture of Rachel Levine] to a violent military coup, and I said yes, if my choice is between [however you want to characterize that picture] or a violent military coup, I would prefer [however you want to characterize that picture].  

And this conversation makes me wonder how many of you would prefer a violent military coup?  Apparently, Stroudcrowd thinks I should.  And Copycat thinks I have missed some point.

---

January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

Is that like saying that Biden didn't select Kamala as VP because she's a "black" woman? Because you know for a fact he did because he even said he was.. 

He dumped all of his woke DEI bull [BLEEP] on us so he can appease his masters and our country took the fall for it.. And you [BLEEP] know it.

Biden said only black women were qualified to be on the ticket with him. He said the same thing about the Supreme Court seat Justice Jackson now sits in.
He did not promise to promote transgender members of the USPHS or any other branch of the federal government.
The Kamala situation proves nothing about the Rachel situation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nono I’m not talking about people involved in politics,
You are absolutely right,I decided to browse this section just like I did my best to make an educated vote the last election.
I’m talking about the transgender people because somebody brought them up into this conversation.
I hear so much about them and I feel like so many conversations about politics come down to them and I don’t really understand why and what’s the point?Are they really that big an issue?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in Jax..
I feel like we have many bigger problems to work on?

The progressive left made them a political issue like do everything and everyone. Everything is about identity to them and they use it as a weapon to intimidate, coerce and otherwise browbeat corporations, organizations, and politicians who disagree with them. All it took was people disagreeing with trans folks sharing restrooms with the gender they identify with, allowing underage kids to begin transition surgeries and hormone therapy, etc., and they screamed transphobia. It all went to hell from there. 

People can't seem to understand that disagreement isn't a personal attack, it's simply a disagreement but when their entire worldview is tied to identity be it theirs or others, everything is personal. For them it translates to politics for reasons that are beyond me.

---

Why do I have a feeling that this looney [BLEEP] is an alt?

---

Factually correct but still avoiding the actual point.  Why do I bother?

January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

You know 100% why Levine was chosen yet you managed to defend the selection.  Quite a few of the Biden appointments were based on race, gender and identity over qualifications.  You know this, yet like a typical liberal you duck and dodge the truth or worse accuse anyone that questions the motives of some sort of ism.  And you want to pretend you are not a self acknowledged contrarian.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.