Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-the-experts-say dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.

Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.

In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.

Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.

Source: Fox News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:37PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:37PM (#453782) Journal

    We've seen that revealed via internal memos [wikipedia.org] that required reporting to be specifically slanted to favor republican party orthodoxy.

    Note, that your linked source doesn't currently [wikipedia.org] say that. Maybe you were looking for a particular date [wikipedia.org]?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:46PM (#453792)

    Khallow, will you ever grow beyond simple literalism?

    No there are no memos that say "support the republican party line."' There are memos that say "spin stories about X, Y and Z in this way" where "this way" is always the republican party line. Its particularly revealing when the direction of spin changes right as the republican party line changes direction.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:29AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:29AM (#454002) Journal

      Khallow, will you ever grow beyond simple literalism?

      When will you stop saying things that are "simple literal" false? It would not have been hard to avoid that particular pitfall.

      There are memos that say "spin stories about X, Y and Z in this way" where "this way" is always the republican party line.

      Sure, if I cherry pick the memos that follow the Republican party line, then they always follow the Republican party line. Funny how that works. I believe that's the Sex Panther fallacy.

      Fox News is so biased, I wouldn't be surprised that they're running an overt pro-Republican party agenda. But I'm not clear how you're so certain other major media outlets aren't running political agendas of their own.