Pete Hedgseth for Secretary of Defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You send us the "abuser of women" for our secretary of defense, armed services committee? You should all find another job.

You send us someone totally incompetent! But Dems screwed up the hearing. They focused on moral issues and didn’t grill Hegseth on competency: how will he address threats from China, how will the military address cyber attacks, use AI? Etc. They could have AT LEAST forced Rs into an uncomfortable position.

No one cares that a nominee is a drunk or sexual abuser. Yeh, I know some care but we as a society are so passed caring… if we did, Trump wouldn’t be president.

Good point. The hearing needed more exchanges like the one Hegseth had with Tammy Duckworth where he revealed he didn't know the ASEAN countries:

Hegseth responded at the heated Senate confirmation hearing that he couldn’t tell Duckworth the exact number of ASEAN nations, but that “I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan, and in AUKUS with Australia,” referring to a pact among the U.S., Australia and Britain.

“None of those three countries are in ASEAN,” responded Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois. “I suggest you do a little homework.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You send us the "abuser of women" for our secretary of defense, armed services committee? You should all find another job.

You send us someone totally incompetent! But Dems screwed up the hearing. They focused on moral issues and didn’t grill Hegseth on competency: how will he address threats from China, how will the military address cyber attacks, use AI? Etc. They could have AT LEAST forced Rs into an uncomfortable position.

No one cares that a nominee is a drunk or sexual abuser. Yeh, I know some care but we as a society are so passed caring… if we did, Trump wouldn’t be president.

Yes. Lots of people care. Because most of us know that in leadership, character matters. ESPECIALLY in the military. A guy with his character flaws would get passed over for even mid-level leadership roles. Maybe that’s why he never made it past Major?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You send us the "abuser of women" for our secretary of defense, armed services committee? You should all find another job.

You send us someone totally incompetent! But Dems screwed up the hearing. They focused on moral issues and didn’t grill Hegseth on competency: how will he address threats from China, how will the military address cyber attacks, use AI? Etc. They could have AT LEAST forced Rs into an uncomfortable position.

No one cares that a nominee is a drunk or sexual abuser. Yeh, I know some care but we as a society are so passed caring… if we did, Trump wouldn’t be president.

Yes. Lots of people care. Because most of us know that in leadership, character matters. ESPECIALLY in the military. A guy with his character flaws would get passed over for even mid-level leadership roles. Maybe that’s why he never made it past Major?

Got news for you. If you are not maga or someone who stormed the capitol you will be removed from command. If you are black or a woman you should retire as soon as possible because they are coming for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

Those are GOALS for the "applicant pool" - not final quotas. Please learn how to read and think.

If you do not understand that OERs (Officer Efficiency Reports) likely mention whether or not an officer meets "goals," you have never been an officer in the military. If this "goal" is important to your superior, believe me, it will be taken into consideration. Of course they didn't say "quotas" because they know that is illegal. This is just another way to get around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

Those are GOALS for the "applicant pool" - not final quotas. Please learn how to read and think.

If you do not understand that OERs (Officer Efficiency Reports) likely mention whether or not an officer meets "goals," you have never been an officer in the military. If this "goal" is important to your superior, believe me, it will be taken into consideration. Of course they didn't say "quotas" because they know that is illegal. This is just another way to get around it.

If you think OER stands for Officer Efficiency Reports, you have never been an officer in the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

Those are GOALS for the "applicant pool" - not final quotas. Please learn how to read and think.

If you do not understand that OERs (Officer Efficiency Reports) likely mention whether or not an officer meets "goals," you have never been an officer in the military. If this "goal" is important to your superior, believe me, it will be taken into consideration. Of course they didn't say "quotas" because they know that is illegal. This is just another way to get around it.

If you think OER stands for Officer Efficiency Reports, you have never been an officer in the military.

[Anonymous]

The military will be purged of blacks, women and any libs. Only white men with proven maga or white supremacist loyalties will be promoted or allowed to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

Those are GOALS for the "applicant pool" - not final quotas. Please learn how to read and think.

If you do not understand that OERs (Officer Efficiency Reports) likely mention whether or not an officer meets "goals," you have never been an officer in the military. If this "goal" is important to your superior, believe me, it will be taken into consideration. Of course they didn't say "quotas" because they know that is illegal. This is just another way to get around it.

If you think OER stands for Officer Efficiency Reports, you have never been an officer in the military.

Only DCUM-
The keyboard warriors come out in force thinking they know something about the military

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The military will be purged of blacks, women and any libs. Only white men with proven maga or white supremacist loyalties will be promoted or allowed to stay.

True patriots, the non MAGAs who professionally serve the defend the constitution will stay and fight for America against this fascism. Our country fought a war over it once already and won, true patriots in uniform will not let it happen to us now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The military will be purged of blacks, women and any libs. Only white men with proven maga or white supremacist loyalties will be promoted or allowed to stay.

True patriots, the non MAGAs who professionally serve the defend the constitution will stay and fight for America against this fascism. Our country fought a war over it once already and won, true patriots in uniform will not let it happen to us now.

There is no fascism. Next

[Anonymous]

If you think OER stands for Officer Efficiency Reports, you have never been an officer in the military.

Never said I have been. DH is 30 year--told me the name changed to Officer Evaluation Report.

The principal is the same. If the "goal" is to have a certain percentage, and an officer does not meet the "goal," he can be dinged. If you have served in the military, you know that you want to meet the goals of your commanding officer.
When the now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that his goal was specific percentages of personnel of certain race and gender, you can be sure you must be showing growth in the desired percentages if you want a good report.

Just like OER changing from Officer Efficiency Report to Officer Evaluation Report--it serves the same purpose. The only thing that is different is the semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The military will be purged of blacks, women and any libs. Only white men with proven maga or white supremacist loyalties will be promoted or allowed to stay.

True patriots, the non MAGAs who professionally serve the defend the constitution will stay and fight for America against this fascism. Our country fought a war over it once already and won, true patriots in uniform will not let it happen to us now.

There is no fascism. Next

You’re either naive, ignorant, or a fascist.

[Anonymous]

Pete's former sister-in-law has signed an affidavit swearing that his second wife, Samantha, was scared of him, hid in a closet from him and had a safe word so the sister-in-law could help her escape him.

According to the affidavit, during the marriage, Samantha Hegseth developed and executed plans with members of Hegseth’s family and mutual friends to help her escape “if she felt she needed to get away from Hegseth.”

One individual with indirect knowledge of Samantha Hegseth’s alleged escape plans had previously told committee staffers about them, according to three sources familiar with the conversations. NBC News has also spoken with two other sources who had been aware of these plans before the committee staffers heard about them.

These plans included what Danielle Hegseth refers to in the affidavit as a “safe word/code word” that Samantha could text her to let friends and family know that Pete Hegseth was in a potentially dangerous and volatile state at home and that Samantha needed help.

In the affidavit, Danielle Hegseth also says that one time “sometime in 2015-2016,” Samantha did text her one of these words and activated the escape plan.

Danielle Hegseth also alleges in the affidavit that Samantha told her that on one occasion Samantha had “hid in her closet from Hegseth because she feared for her personal safety.”

Samantha Hegseth's response:

In an email response Monday, Samantha Hegseth said: “First and foremost, I have not and will not comment on my marriage to Pete Hegseth. I do not have representatives speaking on my behalf, nor have I ever asked anyone to share or speak about the details of my marriage on my behalf, whether it be a reporter, a committee member, a transition team member, etc.”

She added, “I do not believe your information to be accurate, and I have cc’d my lawyer.”

Asked what information was not accurate and for comment on the affidavit, she replied on Tuesday: “There was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make to you, I have let you know that I am not speaking and will not speak on my marriage to Pete. Please respect this decision.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/senators-received-affidavit-containing-new-allegations-pete-hegseth-de-rcna188342

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you think OER stands for Officer Efficiency Reports, you have never been an officer in the military.

Never said I have been. DH is 30 year--told me the name changed to Officer Evaluation Report.

The principal is the same. If the "goal" is to have a certain percentage, and an officer does not meet the "goal," he can be dinged. If you have served in the military, you know that you want to meet the goals of your commanding officer.
When the now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said that his goal was specific percentages of personnel of certain race and gender, you can be sure you must be showing growth in the desired percentages if you want a good report.

Just like OER changing from Officer Efficiency Report to Officer Evaluation Report--it serves the same purpose. The only thing that is different is the semantics.

Haha I bet you were one of those mil wives that demanded a salute from the gate guards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am clearly not in the military; so most of the military clearly outranks him - how does that work? Does he automatically get a promotion? I thought the military had fairly strict protocol regarding hierarchy and manners - does a general still outrank him?

Civilians don’t have ranks. The secretary of defense is a civilian position.

He would be overseeing many levels of service members who were better at being a military officer than he was.