Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 14
The transition team for President-elect Trump is working on an executive order that would speed up the firing of top military brass if signed, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
The draft executive order would set up a “warrior board” of retired generals and noncommissioned officers given power to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend anyone “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” according to the document, reviewed by the Journal.
If signed by Trump once he takes office, it could allow the quick removal of generals and admirals and purge the ranks of those the future commander-in-chief takes issue with for whatever reason.
Such a move could gut the Defense Department and create a fearful atmosphere among top military officers, given Trump’s past promise to rid the Pentagon of so-called “woke generals” – those seen as promoting diversity in the ranks.
Yup- gotta get rid of those “woke” Generals and Admirals. Methinks there will be a broad application of the term “woke”.
If you won’t obey an unlawful order from the president, you must be “woke”. If you won’t voice your loyalty, not to the Constitution, but to the president himself, you must be “woke”
Purging disloyals” among the officer corps, particularly the general officer corps is ALWAYS the first step taken by an authoritarian in order to consolidate his power.
Worked really well for Joe Stalin in the late ‘30s when he purged his military officers who were not ideologically pure enough.
Worked really well, too, until Germany invaded Russia and Stalin found himself without a competent officer corps.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nope, there won’t be a Mattis or a Milley or a Kelley to apply the brakes.
Just Trump loyalists, all the way down
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just a WAG…. I have no idea why his name came to mind….but I’m a-guessin’ that if Trump actually goes through with this, Michael Flynn will chair that “warrior board”.
He could bring some real Q-Anon purity to the moment.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yup- gotta get rid of those “woke” Generals and Admirals. Methinks there will be a broad application of the term “woke”. - Billz
--------------
First to go, the ones who brought DEI into the meritocracy, and the ones who welcomed Drag Shows on base, and a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot.
No. of Recommendations: 2
forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damned covid shot
Since when did any member of the military have the right to receive a vaccination?
“Yeah, doc, I know they’re sending me to Panama, but if it’s just the same, I think I’ll pass on that yellow fever shot”
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 0
I thought your low point was your racism against orientals. - Aussi
-----------
Help me out. What led you to think I hold that view?
No. of Recommendations: 23
and a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot.
Only 100 service members died of COVID during the first 3 years of the pandemic, most, before the vaccine was available. That’s pretty remarkable. Yes, military personnel are more fit, not obese, and younger than the population at large. But only 100 died of COVID. Out of 2.83 million military personnel.
Here’s the money shot statistic: only 2 (two) died who were fully vaccinated. After vaccines were made available, all personnel except for the 8000 you mention, were vaccinated, and only 2 of these died.
We have an all volunteer military. Nobody coerced these men and women to join. And each of them, of their own free will, swore an oth- to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice..
The order was issued to take the vaccine. All 2.83 million service members complied with the order- except the 8000 who disobeyed the direct, lawful order issued by those appointed as officers over them
They broke their promise. They broke the code, and there were consequences for that. That’s how the military remains the military and not a mob.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You're aware that as commander in chief he runs the military, and that's not a democracy, right?
Obama fired people hand over fist and I don't recall anybody griping about it. He's the reason why we have idiots with 3- and 4- stars.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I thought your low point was your racism against orientals
LOL. No comment needed.
No. of Recommendations: 3
over a damn covid shot.
You're the guy who believes farts prove masks don't provide any benefit?
No. of Recommendations: 13
a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot.
PSA When I was inducted, we all stood in lines and moved forward as a fellow with an automatic vaccinator shot vaccines into our arms. Everyone, except those deemed to have medically good reason not to.
We don't need people hiding behind a "sincerely held religious belief" contrived at the last minute in the military. Boot em out - good riddance.
Every single one of the older guys near their pension had gone through mass vaccinations, but I'm in favor of not holding it against them for their pensions, but the rest - F em. This is the military. G Washington vaccinated his troops and some of them died because of it.
We don't need summer soldiers. We don't want pussies in the military. F em.
No. of Recommendations: 14
First to go, the ones who brought DEI into the meritocracy, and the ones who welcomed Drag Shows on base, and a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot.
I think the former is just made-up crap from the RW propaganda machine. I recall reading about one drag show on base. One. Hardly a trend.
The latter, though, is not optional. Granted, it was 40 years ago, but when I was in, you could not refuse vaccination. They lined you up, and you walked between two medical persons with injector guns. You'd stand there, and you'd get one in each arm. I don't remember how many days we had to do that, but they didn't give you all the shots in one day. Only an allergy to the vaccines would have been a valid excuse to disobey that order. The COVID shot would be no different today, and it shouldn't have been. Chalk up resistance to that shot to the RWPM, spreading disinformation for at least 30 years now. It was at least as safe as any other vaccine (probably more, since a bit of RNA cannot infect you with the disease).
No. of Recommendations: 7
We have an all volunteer military. Nobody coerced these men and women to join. And each of them, of their own free will, swore an oth- to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice..
The order was issued to take the vaccine. All 2.83 million service members complied with the order- except the 8000 who disobeyed the direct, lawful order issued by those appointed as officers over them
They broke their promise. They broke the code, and there were consequences for that. That’s how the military remains the military and not a mob.
This.
We can argue about requiring civilians to get the shot, but in the military it was a lawful order that had to be carried out. You don't have the option to refuse in the military. Those 8000 got off lucky. As I recall, they received honorable discharges. That wouldn't have happened when I was in. You would have had "bad paper" (dishonorable), which means you would never want to claim military service on a resume, because if they check and see the "dishonorable", you're hosed.
No. of Recommendations: 8
First to go, the ones who brought DEI into the meritocracy, and the ones who welcomed Drag Shows on base, and a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot.This seems a little inconsistent, though, with Trump's theory of how federal personnel is obligated to be responsive to - and implement - the policy preferences of the President.
There's little doubt that President Biden
wanted all the soldiers to have to take the damn covid shot. That they shouldn't be allowed to skip it. It's not like the generals and other military commanders should have
chosen to allow soldiers to skip their vaccinations just because they didn't want to take it, since that policy would have immediately been countermanded by the CinC.
So why be upset with anyone other than Biden, and perhaps Lloyd Austin? Same with DEI. On his literal first day in office, Biden issued an Executive Order directing a "whole of government" obligation to advance equity and inclusion. This was followed by a second EO in June
expressly ordering that every part of the government implement a DEI plan:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/president...https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/president...So why are you mad at the military commanders who....did what they were directed to do by the person who was elected to implement that policy?
No. of Recommendations: 0
So why are you mad at the military commanders who....did what they were directed to do by the person who was elected to implement that policy? - albaby
-----------------
I have to concede that point. However, I can still express contempt at Biden's operatives even though they did not set the policy.
No. of Recommendations: 17
I have to concede that point. However, I can still express contempt at Biden's operatives even though they did not set the policy.
Again - why? I mean, the whole point is that the military is supposed to be under civilian control. The President is the one who sets the policies, and the military commanders are obligated to implement it. That's a foundational element of the job. That doesn't make them "Biden's operatives" - it makes them soldiers who obey the chain of command and are ultimately answerable to the Commander in Chief.
That's why Trump's commission to purge the ranks of all the generals he deems "insufficient" - coupled with the choice of Hegseth - ought to be at least a little concerning to you. There's no reason that their compliance with the policies set by the prior CinC should warrant a wholesale winnowing of the ranks. All of those DEI initiatives were directly ordered by the President and implemented by SecDef - there was literally no possible justification for any of the generals to refuse to do it. Yet it appears that Trump wants to involuntarily retire a very large swath of the military brass, ostensibly for the fact that they....did their jobs and obeyed legal orders?
That's why folks are pointing out that purging the military of people that are perceived to be disloyal to the person of the President is typically not associated with a desire for efficiency, but more commonly an exercise in trying to fill positions with people that are personally loyal to the leader, rather than professionals who will do what the leader tells them because it's their job. That doesn't often turn out for the benefit of the nation, rather than the leader personally.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So why are you mad at the military commanders who....did what they were directed to do by the person who was elected to implement that policy?
Excellent point. I hadn't considered that angle, in addition to my other comments on this subject. The military commanders were following legal orders from their higher-ups. End of story. No ass-kicking would be appropriate (unless they disobeyed those orders, but that's not what BHM is on about).
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's why folks are pointing out that purging the military of people that are perceived to be disloyal to the person of the President is typically not associated with a desire for efficiency, but more commonly an exercise in trying to fill positions with people that are personally loyal to the leader, rather than professionals who will do what the leader tells them because it's their job. That doesn't often turn out for the benefit of the nation, rather than the leader personally. - Albaby
-----------------
When a major goal is to overhaul the moribund inefficient Pentagon procurement processes, necessary to rebuild our military, then the simpatico arrangement between the Generals and Defense contractors must be degraded. Breaking those bonds necessarily requires a degree of "out with the old".
No. of Recommendations: 11
When a major goal is to overhaul the moribund inefficient Pentagon procurement processes, necessary to rebuild our military, then the simpatico arrangement between the Generals and Defense contractors must be degraded. Breaking those bonds necessarily requires a degree of "out with the old".
Ignoring the fact that you jumped from DEI and COVID shots to procurement...wait...we can't ignore it, because it's a completely different topic.
If you want to talk procurement, and the MIC, that is a huge can of worms. I totally agree with you that generals shouldn't be able to join military contractors (in any capacity) once they retire. Purging the ranks will not stop that practice, nor address procurement in any way. In fact, it may just hasten some senior officers to take positions with military contractors earlier than they expected. And, without laws preventing it, the new batch of Pentagon officers will almost certainly perpetuate the same behaviors (you know the contractors will continue to provide the same inducements).
And pretty much all of those officers you want to purge rose to those ranks on merit, whether or not they ended up on boards of military contractors when they retired. So a purge is the completely wrong approach. Just pass a law that anyone involved with procurement can never work for a defense contractor in any role, nor accept payment from them for anything ("consultant", or "advisory", or whatever). THAT is how you address that problem.
No. of Recommendations: 19
When a major goal is to overhaul the moribund inefficient Pentagon procurement processes, necessary to rebuild our military, then the simpatico arrangement between the Generals and Defense contractors must be degraded. Breaking those bonds necessarily requires a degree of "out with the old".
But is that what these steps are actually structured to do? I mean, there's a reason why your initial take on this wasn't about efficiency or how the Pentagon sources its equipment, but rather went straight to DEI and Covid and woke.
Pete Hegseth isn't a procurement guy, or an efficiency guy - he has no experience in purchasing or contracting or procurement or anything like that. He's an anti-woke guy. He's a Trump loyalist. He's a push back on DEI guy. His skillset isn't a good fit for the policy that you're saying is the one that is behind this. But it is a perfect fit for the more pernicious goal of a punitive purge of people who are perfectly qualified but just insufficiently on Trump's "team."
To say nothing of the fact that only a small portion of the Pentagon brass has any involvement, even indirectly, in procurement and contracting. That's a specific division of Defense. If these efforts were directed at that group, then perhaps this might be more credible. But a "whole of military" purge of 3- and 4-star generals?
I don't know, BHM. There's not a lot to indicate that this is actually about procurement processes, rather than something that you should be a little more concerned about....
No. of Recommendations: 1
When a major goal is to overhaul the moribund inefficient Pentagon procurement processes, necessary to rebuild our military, then the simpatico arrangement between the Generals and Defense contractors must be degraded. Breaking those bonds necessarily requires a degree of "out with the old".
Procurement and program development is a multi-layered onion. I have family working in this space and they talk to their...customers...some of whom are in uniformed services and some of them are in 3-letter agencies all the time.
The entire process is screwed up. The government demands fixed price contracts from their suppliers...then turns around and demands extra things, changes requirements, and generally doesn't know what it wants. Then it complains about cost overruns.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Did you serve, Mike? This approach to "restructuring" the military is pernicious and will weaken the US. Incidentally, this is the approach Putin and Kim have taken and look how well they are doing in Ukraine.
No. of Recommendations: 5
When a major goal is to overhaul the moribund inefficient Pentagon procurement processes, necessary to rebuild our military, then the simpatico arrangement between the Generals and Defense contractors must be degraded. Breaking those bonds necessarily requires a degree of "out with the old".
I didn’t see that listed as a goal. It may be your goal and is certainly a goal I share with you.
Getting rid of “woke” is the listed goal, which I believe is the cover they’ll use to force wholesale resignations.
If they had wanted to address the sclerotic procurement process, they would have emphasized that, and gained wider support for doing so.
But no. They’re going after “woke”, which is a fuzzy enough target that they can drive any general through it and out the door.
No. of Recommendations: 1
For those griping about "a purge", don't.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/197-...When democrats win elections, they're allowed to hire loyalists and pursue the democrat agenda.
When Republicans win elections, they're required to pursue the democrat agenda.
Yeah, not how it works.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But no. They’re going after “woke”, which is a fuzzy enough target that they can drive any general through it and out the door.
Woke sucks. It has no place in what should be the world's ultimate meritocracy.
Riddle me this. How well-equipped is the United States to build and service ships right now?
How about transporting gas from the US to someplace else?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Did you serve, Mike?
That's a good question. Well mike?
And Dope, did you serve?
How about you Jedi?
No. of Recommendations: 8
"First to go, the ones who brought DEI into the meritocracy, and the ones who welcomed Drag Shows on base, and a special kick in the ass as they leave for the ones who forced thousands of capable, expensively trained, willing and patriotic service members out of the military over a damn covid shot."
One thing I like about you BHM is that you never pass up an opportunity to display your ignorance. You make it easy.
Ignorant, racist, and hateful. It is clear why you would give Trump a pass on anything he does.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Did you serve, Mike? - flightdoc
-------------------
No, I did not.
Am I still eligible to hold and express an opinion? Yes!
No. of Recommendations: 1
When democrats win elections, they're allowed to hire loyalists and pursue the democrat agenda.
When Republicans win elections, they're required to pursue the democrat agenda.
Yeah, not how it works. - Dope
--------------
Perhaps a rule would be in order requiring the opposition party to make 50% of the nominations, you know just to ensure fairness and equity.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Perhaps a rule would be in order requiring the opposition party to make 50% of the nominations, you know just to ensure fairness and equity.
Except that two-party rule isn't required in the Constitution. In fact, Jefferson really wanted to avoid that. But how it is structured at both state and federal levels means you'll get only two dominant parties. There can be, and are, other parties. But they're insignificant, amounting to a few percent.
I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't think people are suggesting appointing people that don't adhere to the winning party's agenda. I think what everyone wants is an independent civil service, not one of fealty to the "leader". Same for the military. A partisan civil service, and officer corps, is a recipe for very bad things.
As a side note, a little bit of history: the German military oath of service was changed after Hindenburg died, and the Chancellor took over. He promptly abolished any remnants of the Weimar (the Reichstag had burned down a year earlier), and the oath was changed to swear allegiance to the man, Adolph Hitler. Not the nation of Germany.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think what everyone wants is an independent civil service, not one of fealty to the "leader". Same for the military. A partisan civil service, and officer corps, is a recipe for very bad things. - 1pg
-----------------
I agree with you mostly. 99%+ of the civil servants are just cranking out their job although it seems like many of them refuse to return to their offices. The fact they are essentially immune from termination makes for bad optics now and then.
However the leadership of these agencies, certainly the director and the next layer or two beneath is another matter. This is where the deep state occurs in the way agency funds are requested and allocated, strategic leaks, resistance to congressional oversight, etc.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I still do not believe there is a "deep state". And the resistance you speak of is a good thing. Political appointments can be made for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with competence. The civil service is staffed with experienced professionals who know how things work (and don't work). If some edict comes down from the cabinet, and it is idiotic, it's really the job of the professionals to say "this is stupid, you may want to rethink that". Ultimately, the Cabinet person may get their way. But it's part of the job to let them know they're being dumb (or even illegal).
I can't tell you how many times a manager would try to tell me how to do my job. I would nod, and then do it the right way anyway. I got results, so I didn't get in trouble. (If I didn't get results, I probably would have been put on a PIP. But I knew my job, and how to do it. Managers and VPs generally didn't.)
No. of Recommendations: 5
When democrats win elections, they're allowed to hire loyalists and pursue the democrat agenda.
Dope, projecting.
EOM
No. of Recommendations: 6
However the leadership of these agencies, certainly the director and the next layer or two beneath is another matter. This is where the deep state occurs in the way agency funds are requested and allocated, strategic leaks, resistance to congressional oversight, etc.
Those folks are typically all political appointees. The President doesn't just appoint the cabinet. About 4,000 executive positions are direct Presidential appointments (of which about a third are subject to confirmation hearings).
No. of Recommendations: 2
I agree with you mostly. 99%+ of the civil servants are just cranking out their job although it seems like many of them refuse to return to their offices. The fact they are essentially immune from termination makes for bad optics now and then.
However the leadership of these agencies, certainly the director and the next layer or two beneath is another matter. This is where the deep state occurs in the way agency funds are requested and allocated, strategic leaks, resistance to congressional oversight, etc.
We in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM have an independent, non partisan civil service. Obama saw to that.
Lois Lerner didn't need to be told to fry conservative 501c(3) groups. That was what she was always going to do and she knew her management would look the other way. The Crossfire Hurricane people knew they had a mandate to violate the hell out of Carter Page's civil rights because they knew that's what the bosses wanted.
So on and so forth.
As the political side that is always on the receiving end of this kind of nonsense, we say...enough. Time to throw them all out and replace them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Am I still eligible to hold and express an opinion? Yes!
That's asked to determine how much weight is given to your opinion. Everyone can have an opinion and express it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Lois Lerner didn't need to be told to fry conservative 501c(3) groups.
They fried them on how they did it, but they should have been looked into. There were enough of them that at least one of them had to be a fraud, you just had to figure out which one. Finding that one would have been enough to scrutinize the others, but not for being a 501c(3) - for fraud. because of that it was never looked into, and any fraud went unnoticed. It was also a green light for any fraudsters.
No. of Recommendations: 11
"Ignoring the fact that you jumped from DEI and COVID shots to procurement...wait...we can't ignore it, because it's a completely different topic."
Of course BHM is all over the place desperately trying to justify Trump's idiocy. There is no logical or rational justification to remove large numbers of high level military officers. Any attempt is just crazy and does nothing but weaken America. BHM doesn't care about America though. He just wants to find a way to defend Trump. It is like the Terminator dying in that cauldron of molten metal at the end of Terminator 2. Constantly changing shape, desperately trying to find something that will save itself. That is BHM trying to defend Trump's craziness. He will jump from justification to justification desperately trying to find something that will remotely sound reasonable. It doesn't matter how idiotic he will make himself sound, he has to defend Trump.
Cultists gonna cult, even if it destroys America.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They fried them on how they did it, but they should have been looked into.
Uh, huh. They fried them because of who they were donating to. democrats never have a problem using the power of the federal government to stomp their political enemeies.
It's one reason why you people react to Trump the way you do: you're assuming he's going to do to you what you've done to him.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Large numbers of generals leaving office would be a warning sign. In the 8 unified combatant commands that have existed since 2000, there were 26 commander changes while Obama was president, and 23 changes while G.W. Bush was president. About 3 per year. Next year, I expect about 4 changes in unified combatant commanders (4 out of 11 commanders). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a 4-year term, and so should be in office until 2027.
Unified combatant commanders stay in office about 2 to 4 years. Listing the year there was a commander change:
Commander Year Left Office
Central Command 2022, 2019, 2016, 2013, 2010, 2010, 2008, 2008, 2007, 2003, 2000
European Command 2022, 2016, 2019, 2013, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2000
Indo-Pacific Command 2024, 2021, 2018, 2015, 2012, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2002
Northern Command 2024, 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014, 2011, 2010, 2007, 2004
Southern Command 2024, 2021, 2018, 2016, 2009, 2012, 2004, 2006, 2002, 2001, 2000
Special Operations Command 2022, 2019, 2016, 2014, 2011, 2007, 2003, 2000
Strategic Command 2022, 2016, 2019, 2013, 2011, 2007, 2004, 2001
Transportation Command 2024, 2021, 2018, 2015, 2014, 2011, 2008, 2005, 2001
Africa Command 2022, 2019, 2016, 2013, 2011
Cyber Command 2024, 2018, 2014
Space Command 2024, 2020
Chief of Staff Year Left Office
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2023, 2019, 2015, 2011, 2007, 2005, 2001
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2021, 2019, 2015, 2011, 2007, 2005, 2001, 2000
Chief of staff of the Army 2023, 2019, 2015, 2011, 2011, 2007, 2003
Vice chief of staff of the Army 2023, 2022, 2019, 2017, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2003
from the List of active duty United States four-star officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_...
