Today in Fascism

Hüsker Dü said:
The speech Pete Hegseth gave yesterday was probably the most disrespectful display toward our military and our veterans I've ever seen, and it's not getting enough attention for that fact.

In that speech, he said the following:

“We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that: No fatties, no tr*nnies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors — just tough, ready, committed troops.”

Think about that — if you were someone who served, or are currently serving, and you were/are a bit overweight, a transsexual, someone who had a beard (God forbid), or just thought differently than Hegseth — the multiple adulterer, sexual predator, abuser of women (go ask his mom) — then he clearly has no respect for your service.

I wonder how many “fatties, tr*nnies, beardos, and weirdos” have fought, died, or been severely wounded fighting for this country?

Hell, go look at pictures of the Delta guys; quite a few of them have beards. I guess they aren't “fit to serve” in Hegseth's ideal military?

The way in which he mocks and dismisses anyone who doesn't fit his “image” of what a soldier should be is appalling.

The fact that anyone would want to enlist in the military and serve their country is something that should be respected — I don't give a damn who they are.

But for the Defense Secretary to stand there, openly mocking and belittling anyone who's currently serving or has served who doesn't meet his small-minded and ignorant view of what a “soldier” actually is and should look like, that's one of the most disrespectful things I've seen anyone say about our military and our veterans.

And who is a “weirdo,” exactly? Because if you ask me, a clown with slicked-back, greasy-looking hair, whose first acts as Defense Secretary included installing a bougie new makeup room for TV appearances, who cheats on his wives, sexually assaults women, gives speeches like a failing slam poet, and posts videos of himself failing at working out trying to “look tough” — that's not just a “weirdo,” that's a lowlife piece of sh*t.

Then again, what should we expect?

I've said it before: no president has been more disrespectful of the military and our veterans than Donald Trump.

Someone who's mocked POWs, attacked Gold Star families, called veterans “traitors” for opposing him, wore a baseball hat to a dignified transfer ceremony, called those who died for our country “suckers” and “losers,” staged a campaign photo-op at Arlington National Cemetery against their policies of keeping that location out of politics and sacred, accused the families of the sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln of being liars for telling the media about the conditions on that ship, has repeatedly defended his war in Iran by saying “only 18 people” (not soldiers, they're just people to him) have died, and has repeatedly posted images of himself in military uniform, even though he's a draft dodger, a clear act of false valor.

Oh, and they've repeatedly tried to hide the true number of troops who've been killed or wounded in Trump's war in Iran, trying to make it appear like less of a disaster.

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone when Hegseth stands up on a stage and disrespects every single member of our military and our veterans who are serving or have served this nation who don't meet his childish, small-minded, mostly looks-based standards for what constitutes a “warrior.”

History will not be kind to these people or those who keep supporting them.
Click to expand...
Is this your expert opinion or fact?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
We could stop electing adjudicated sexual assaulter convicted of as the judge said, “basically rape”. We could believe women no matter which party their assaulter is a member of. We could hold our representatives and their cabinet members accountable for their past and current actions.
Click to expand...
Civil matters establish guilt?
 
IMG_9962.jpeg
 
I’ve come to believe there truly is a phenomenon called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

People who adopt a deranged loyalty to Donald Trump.

We’ve all by now heard about and even watched the video showing the implosion of Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO). From Hawks to Hawkeyes in seven minutes of nationwide embarrassment, and a hearing long obsession with catering to Trump and propagating the Big Lie; ignoring the massive and deadly insurrection that sought to tear the guts out of Congress and shred the U.S. Constitution.

As Schmitt’s shabby and shoddily put together attempt at “gotcha” crumbled like the GOP’s backbone the expression on the face of Sen. Katie Britt (R-Alabama) pretty much summed it up, from the Republican perspective.

Senator Britt sat there gape jawed.

I’m not going to rehash or repeat some of the clever and erudite commentary on this event.

But as I watched the scene unfold, yes I was watching the hearing in real time, it occurred to me that the show trial approach to such hearings gives evidence to a theory I learned long ago. A theory I have long held since my days as a college student of political science.

With the exception of the likes of the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s and the Watergate hearings, the significance of Congressional hearings is generally in inverse proportion to the attention they gather in the press.

Do I believe that Trump should have been impeached? Yes. Both times. I also believe he should have been convicted both times. But the outcome was a forgone conclusion both times.

What did the impeachments accomplish? Apart from setting Trump apart as the only president to have been impeached twice? Neither impeachment moved public opinion very much at all. Either in favor of, or in support of, Trump.

Trump was elected to a second term and earned $2.2 billion during the first year of his second term.

Thus, my assertion that the important hearings, at least at the outset, are data driven and focused on the knowledge and experience of those called to testify or to give witness.

Not in the food-fight hurling of ad hominem attacks. Or in grandstanding.

The best hearings and those that result in good, solid legislation and meaningful oversight are boring.

These hearings also attract legislators who want to legislate and serve their constituents; to serve the country.

They rarely attract legislators who want to attract attention to themselves.

When is the last time you heard of, or watched, a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Waterways and Wildlife?

But if you’re concerned with clean water or protecting wetlands, this is the go to committee.

What I saw yesterday, was a hearing that was convened by the Republicans to serve only one constituent. Donald Trump. And to speak to only one group of Americans. The MAGA base.

This hearing had absolutely nothing to do with persuading anyone. And everyone in that room, including Jack Smith, must have known there would be no concrete results, just a lot of posturing and vapid pontificating.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Jack Smith, he was the only person in the room, including Democrats, who consistently and persistently maintained his composure.

Why? I don’t know definitively. But I suspect it’s because he’s dealt with people for years who have a deranged loyalty to Trump. And he knows what Trump did on January 6th. He knows what Trump did with all of those classified documents in Mar-a-Lago.

And no ad hominem attacks, no deflections, no name calling will change the facts on the ground.

Trump fomented an insurrection, that had deadly consequences.

Trump illegally removed classified documents from the White House and stacked them in a bathroom at his luxury resort residence.

But as I say, more often than not, the more showy the congressional hearing, the more shallow the results.

This, in my judgment, should be a guiding principle if the Democrats take the majority in the House and possibly the Senate: pick your battles carefully.

The goal should not be to grab headlines, but to force proverbial heads to roll.

IMG_9963.jpeg
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The speech Pete Hegseth gave yesterday was probably the most disrespectful display toward our military and our veterans I've ever seen, and it's not getting enough attention for that fact.

In that speech, he said the following:

“We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that: No fatties, no tr*nnies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors — just tough, ready, committed troops.”

Think about that — if you were someone who served, or are currently serving, and you were/are a bit overweight, a transsexual, someone who had a beard (God forbid), or just thought differently than Hegseth — the multiple adulterer, sexual predator, abuser of women (go ask his mom) — then he clearly has no respect for your service.

I wonder how many “fatties, tr*nnies, beardos, and weirdos” have fought, died, or been severely wounded fighting for this country?

Hell, go look at pictures of the Delta guys; quite a few of them have beards. I guess they aren't “fit to serve” in Hegseth's ideal military?

The way in which he mocks and dismisses anyone who doesn't fit his “image” of what a soldier should be is appalling.

The fact that anyone would want to enlist in the military and serve their country is something that should be respected — I don't give a damn who they are.

But for the Defense Secretary to stand there, openly mocking and belittling anyone who's currently serving or has served who doesn't meet his small-minded and ignorant view of what a “soldier” actually is and should look like, that's one of the most disrespectful things I've seen anyone say about our military and our veterans.

And who is a “weirdo,” exactly? Because if you ask me, a clown with slicked-back, greasy-looking hair, whose first acts as Defense Secretary included installing a bougie new makeup room for TV appearances, who cheats on his wives, sexually assaults women, gives speeches like a failing slam poet, and posts videos of himself failing at working out trying to “look tough” — that's not just a “weirdo,” that's a lowlife piece of sh*t.

Then again, what should we expect?

I've said it before: no president has been more disrespectful of the military and our veterans than Donald Trump.

Someone who's mocked POWs, attacked Gold Star families, called veterans “traitors” for opposing him, wore a baseball hat to a dignified transfer ceremony, called those who died for our country “suckers” and “losers,” staged a campaign photo-op at Arlington National Cemetery against their policies of keeping that location out of politics and sacred, accused the families of the sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln of being liars for telling the media about the conditions on that ship, has repeatedly defended his war in Iran by saying “only 18 people” (not soldiers, they're just people to him) have died, and has repeatedly posted images of himself in military uniform, even though he's a draft dodger, a clear act of false valor.

Oh, and they've repeatedly tried to hide the true number of troops who've been killed or wounded in Trump's war in Iran, trying to make it appear like less of a disaster.

So, it shouldn't surprise anyone when Hegseth stands up on a stage and disrespects every single member of our military and our veterans who are serving or have served this nation who don't meet his childish, small-minded, mostly looks-based standards for what constitutes a “warrior.”

History will not be kind to these people or those who keep supporting them.
Click to expand...
Funny thing happened on the way to the store.

Under Biden the military was not meeting recruiting goals. Why? Biden and the Ds were focused on things other than war fighting. They focused on DEI, and other things that had nothing to do with military readiness.

With Trump and Hegseth the military is now again meeting recruiting goals. The focus on meritocracy and dumping DEI and similar Dem priorities is making a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top