B-Man Posted December 7 Posted December 7 Hegseth On Track? By John Hinderaker The Democrats have mounted a smear campaign against Pete Hegseth. With Matt Gaetz gone, he appears to be their number one target. The smears have involved Hegseth’s relationships with women and allegations of excessive drinking. But there are problems with the Democrats’ campaign: the allegations are anonymous, and thus in the realm of rumor. And they are nearly all old, and generally contradicted by others who are willing to go on the record. If the question is whether Hegseth has a checkered history with women, the answer is yes. But there is no solid evidence of anything beyond that, and I don’t think anyone seriously believes that what is in the public domain should disqualify Pete from serving in the cabinet. I don’t think there are four Republican senators willing to buck Trump on an important nomination. Senators like Joni Ernst have expressed caution, but I can’t see her–or any other Republicans other than Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins–actually voting Hegseth down. So I am optimistic that he will be confirmed. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/hegseth-on-track.php 1
BillsFanNC Posted December 7 Author Posted December 7 Slick Willie. Whataboutism? Absolutely. What about principles. Drinking? 1
Commsvet11 Posted December 7 Posted December 7 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Hegseth On Track? By John Hinderaker The Democrats have mounted a smear campaign against Pete Hegseth. With Matt Gaetz gone, he appears to be their number one target. The smears have involved Hegseth’s relationships with women and allegations of excessive drinking. But there are problems with the Democrats’ campaign: the allegations are anonymous, and thus in the realm of rumor. And they are nearly all old, and generally contradicted by others who are willing to go on the record. If the question is whether Hegseth has a checkered history with women, the answer is yes. But there is no solid evidence of anything beyond that, and I don’t think anyone seriously believes that what is in the public domain should disqualify Pete from serving in the cabinet. I don’t think there are four Republican senators willing to buck Trump on an important nomination. Senators like Joni Ernst have expressed caution, but I can’t see her–or any other Republicans other than Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins–actually voting Hegseth down. So I am optimistic that he will be confirmed. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/hegseth-on-track.php Outside every Army base there is always the following in close proximity…….a pawn shop, a strip club, a tattoo shop, a car dealership and a liquor store though the commissary is cheaper for alchohol. What does every American Legion and VFW have? That’s right a bar. What tradition is done every year for the Marines founding date? You know what goes on during a military ball? It’s just so comical what’s next college kids drinking and partying and hold on guys there could be sex happening there too. Everyone is young and stupid once and then you grow up or you become a liberal. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 7 Posted December 7 (edited) 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Hegseth On Track? By John Hinderaker The Democrats have mounted a smear campaign against Pete Hegseth. With Matt Gaetz gone, he appears to be their number one target. The smears have involved Hegseth’s relationships with women and allegations of excessive drinking. But there are problems with the Democrats’ campaign: the allegations are anonymous, and thus in the realm of rumor. And they are nearly all old, and generally contradicted by others who are willing to go on the record. If the question is whether Hegseth has a checkered history with women, the answer is yes. But there is no solid evidence of anything beyond that, and I don’t think anyone seriously believes that what is in the public domain should disqualify Pete from serving in the cabinet. I don’t think there are four Republican senators willing to buck Trump on an important nomination. Senators like Joni Ernst have expressed caution, but I can’t see her–or any other Republicans other than Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins–actually voting Hegseth down. So I am optimistic that he will be confirmed. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/hegseth-on-track.php "I have never had a drinking problem or have never abused women, but just in case I did I assure you I am now a changed man." 3 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: Everyone is young and stupid once So what's the age cut-off for "youthful indiscretion?" Gaetz and Hegseth in their mid-30s? RFK Jr. in his 50s? Trump in his 60s? I agree with you about drinking and military culture, but if you're an officer with career ambitions, you learn how to control yourself. Edited December 7 by The Frankish Reich
Commsvet11 Posted December 7 Posted December 7 32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: "I have never had a drinking problem or have never abused women, but just in case I did I assure you I am now a changed man." So what's the age cut-off for "youthful indiscretion?" Gaetz and Hegseth in their mid-30s? RFK Jr. in his 50s? Trump in his 60s? I agree with you about drinking and military culture, but if you're an officer with career ambitions, you learn how to control yourself. I noticed you left out the president that got BJ from a twenty some in the Oval Office but we all know why you did that. Either way it’s a point anybody can still womanize at any age but my point was in the military its quite frequent particularly when your are in your early twenties. Now to your last quip if you are an officer with career ambitions you learn to control yourself If you are an officer with career ambitions, I’m sorry but you are not a good officer your career will take place over leading your men. I really need you to think about that…… do you want a leader of men or an officer with career ambitions. 1
sherpa Posted December 7 Posted December 7 31 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: If you are an officer with career ambitions, I’m sorry but you are not a good officer your career will take place over leading your men. You can do both. Regarding womanizing and alcohol consumption, consider the results of the 1960 Democrat Convention.
The Frankish Reich Posted December 7 Posted December 7 53 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: If you are an officer with career ambitions, I’m sorry but you are not a good officer your career will take place over leading your men. I really need you to think about that…… do you want a leader of men or an officer with career ambitions. Something very cynical about this. I think a review of history will reflect that the Venn diagrams for "ambitious" and "leader of men" intersect. And it is in that intersecting part that we should be looking for our cabinet heads. 56 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: I noticed you left out the president that got BJ from a twenty some in the Oval Office but we all know why you did that I did that because it is ancient history. But go ahead, throw it in there. He was in his 40s, so no, not excusable. The difference is he was elected (like Trump) despite the electorate's full awareness of his moral failings. Here we are talking about appointing someone from a vast universe of possible appointees.
BillsFanNC Posted December 7 Author Posted December 7 ⬆️ How old is Finding anyway? I'm guessing he's got 5+ years on me. I'm going with 58.
BillsFanNC Posted December 8 Author Posted December 8 Is Finding behind this type of crap? You betcha!
Unforgiven Posted December 8 Posted December 8 lol tibidiot still here? I find it hysterical he has no other purpose here but troll people he despises. Shocking how anyone still directly responds to this pos. What a truly sad little person. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 8 Posted December 8 On 12/7/2024 at 1:37 PM, The Frankish Reich said: Something very cynical about this. I think a review of history will reflect that the Venn diagrams for "ambitious" and "leader of men" intersect. And it is in that intersecting part that we should be looking for our cabinet heads. I did that because it is ancient history. But go ahead, throw it in there. He was in his 40s, so no, not excusable. The difference is he was elected (like Trump) despite the electorate's full awareness of his moral failings. Here we are talking about appointing someone from a vast universe of possible appointees. Ancient history? He was a headliner in getting out the vote 30 days ago. The purity test argument is hysterical. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 9 Posted December 9 23 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The purity test argument is hysterical. What "purity test?" I've mentioned before that we screen/background check people before appointing them to important jobs. What's different here?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 9 Posted December 9 27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: What "purity test?" I've mentioned before that we screen/background check people before appointing them to important jobs. What's different here? It depends on what you mean by 'screen/background check. Verifying that a political appointee doesn't have a criminal record is one thing, or that she employed an illegal immigrant and beat the tax man while angling for director of IRS is another. When background checks devolve into the absurdity of the Brett Kavanaugh spectacle, where unfounded allegations of wrongdoing can derail a person's prospects, I'm not a fan. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 9 Posted December 9 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It depends on what you mean by 'screen/background check. Verifying that a political appointee doesn't have a criminal record is one thing, or that she employed an illegal immigrant and beat the tax man while angling for director of IRS is another. When background checks devolve into the absurdity of the Brett Kavanaugh spectacle, where unfounded allegations of wrongdoing can derail a person's prospects, I'm not a fan. I agree. I thought the Kavanaugh thing was ridiculous. You can't ask a 50-something man to refute allegations about something an accuser said happened when he was 17. But this is different. Guy's own mother said he was out of control just about 7 years ago, when he was well into his 30s. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 9 Posted December 9 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I agree. I thought the Kavanaugh thing was ridiculous. You can't ask a 50-something man to refute allegations about something an accuser said happened when he was 17. But this is different. Guy's own mother said he was out of control just about 7 years ago, when he was well into his 30s. I can't remove the circus atmosphere these thing bring without thinking of how Kavanaugh (and others) have been treated. I understand you not wanting him to be confirmed, can certainly see why the opposition party wants to delay them all, but the system is a joke. The 'guy's own mother' has said more than that, though, too, and explained her fragile mental state at the time she wrote her email. Btw--you thought the attack against Kavanaugh was a joke, and good for you for acknowledging it. Interestingly, it didn't seem to impact how you voted, which looking at it from the outside, seems a lot like apathy over the abhorrent behavior of democrats up to and including Harris. It's yet another reason I don't pay much attention to concerns about Hegseth. 1 1
Recommended Posts