The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
Nothing to see here! And nothing on Crooks- the 20 year old Blackrock commercial star with no social media and a professionally cleaned house with no silverware, either.
Nah. My "agricultural co-op" down in Helmand was nationalized, and my flower shop taken over by some Durrani motherfucker.
It was a good run.
Big if true (we will breeze right by this story).
I don't remember where I saw the article (nor have the time to find it) but I read something roughly a week ago about this. IIRC it was a discussion with somebody from the CATO Institute talking about how these are numbers based on asylum grantees/legal non-residents, as they have to have a social to work. It's not 2 million illegals that have SS cards.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I mean, if she actually did this and the other alleged things she should totally get gone.
This just doesn't make sense to me. I've never served in NATO but do you even hang the pics of the pres and secdef on the way like we would at a unit? Because if we did that for the US, wouldn't we then have to do it for all of the NATO countries? Maybe they do, IDK. But even if that were the case, would you be dumb enough as a four-star to talk shit about it? IDK, maybe she is.
And "wait them out?" This admin is going to be in place for four years. How much longer would her tour at NATO have been? Prob not that long.
It just doesn't add up to be. But then again TDS makes people do and say dumb things, so who knows.
As always, we can see how it plays out. What's the difference between the government assigning you a social security number and getting a card? I don't have to present my card to do anything that requires a social- I just put my number in the space. So if they have a number...?
Devildoc
Verified Military
Apparently Chatfield made some comments about Congress being "too male", pushed DEI crap, and said she could "wait out" the Trump admin.
Her street cred is a bit shaky: she went from flying helo's to commanding non-operational units in her climb, but really was an academic. A lot of gaps in her public record.
If I was Trump or Hegseth all I would say is, "you don't have to be loyal to me, but you do have to follow policy and precedent." She'd hang herself with that rope. They all do.
Her street cred is a bit shaky: she went from flying helo's to commanding non-operational units in her climb, but really was an academic. A lot of gaps in her public record.
If I was Trump or Hegseth all I would say is, "you don't have to be loyal to me, but you do have to follow policy and precedent." She'd hang herself with that rope. They all do.
I don't like this precedent. If we want to remove people for cause, cool. If the "cause" is "I don't like your public statements on this issue", I am not for that.
If she was a bad leader but her bad leadership fell short of actual insubordination or some actual offense, she would be counseled and brought in line.
What's next? Firing every single Intel commander cause "They're super weird and into anime" (cause they all are)?
Devildoc
Verified Military
Bro, this is the navy. We have 3,285,318 examples on here alone for firing because of "due to a loss of confidence in (his/her) ability to lead." The left will make this about being unfair, political, and abominable, and the right will respond by saying it's the SECDEF/SECNAV/POTUS prerogative and always has been and shrug their shoulders.
And the wheels on the bus go round and round....
Spitballing...if there's a US office space or Navy office space, I can see the requirement to hang pictures of the COC like any other military office. Badmouthing any current admin while in uniform is a bad play, I don't know if that meets the criteria for relief...because I just don't know.
I don't want military leadership to blindly obey our elected officials, I want them to question orders and directives, foreign policy, and a host of topics. I don't want a puppet in uniform. I also don't want someone to fight, resist, or disobey simply because they don't like the admin. Didn't we learn anything (BWAHAHAAHAHAA!!! I'm funny) from MacArthur and Truman?
Fight it, argue it, make your case and if you're still told to shut up and color, your time in uniform isn't some birthright or whatever. No one is stopping you from retiring in protest and going on every news show on this planet and speaking your mind. If you're a FOGO you should know this by now. Should.
That last part in particular is what is giving me pause. Every GO knows that heads are rolling. Why would you give another reason to put your head on the block, especially over something stupid?
Also, all I'm seeing is circular reporting based on the same meme. No link to any official-looking story.
This. READ THE ROOM BOB.
Looks like a lot of folks can't break through their programming and are choosing to die on some very small hills.
That's a great point re: the Navy and their proclivity to fire folks.
Devildoc
Verified Military
It's a navy cultural thing, part of which I get, a lot of which I do not. On the one hand, they talk about "failing up" and getting away from zero-defect mentality. On the other, every Admiral Tom, Captain Dick, and Chief Harry seem to get fired, and no one really says why aside from the official "due to loss of confidence in ability to lead." Which to me sounds very Soviet-like and secret-room-in-Lubyanka-ish: Pravda says "they died of natural causes"; autopsy shows "died of 100 grain lead poisoning to the back of the head."
So, no, they really don't allow people to 'fail up' or remove the human factor, but claim they do. It's the old adage in almost every enterprise of saying they put people first, when everyone knows they don't.
My issue is not that they do/don't, my issue is the reasons they give firing people is very subjective and closed. Based on what they did as junior officers, Admirals Halsey, Nimitz, and King should have been relieved. Kinda glad they weren't.
Similar threads
