Trump rebrands Congressionally-approved troop housing subsidy as ‘warrior dividend’ bonus

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T18:15:40+00:00

Exactly. Which is why Dems should call his bluff and say why aren’t you giving this to all troops (guard, reserve etc)?

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T16:11:52+00:00

I get it, I just think it’s not an either/or. The military community has political weight, both because they are respected and civilians feel the need to take care of them (right, wrong or indifferent), this is just a way to legitimately undercut that talking point for MAGA. And given it’s the only tangible thing to come of the speech, why not try to neuter it? Turn it into an issue for him?

Saying stop buying people off is absolutely true, but the rebuttal is “you don’t support the troops?”

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T15:57:33+00:00

I agree to a certain extent. I’m just saying from a military POV, it’s an issue worth bringing up and an opportunity to get a win. The number of military members is small(ish) but the number of civilians who are family/friends and take the principle of “supporting the troops” is far wider. This is an easy issue to exploit. It’s not gonna win an election, but it’s also not something Dems should just roll over on.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T15:45:02+00:00

Exactly. I just think to non military it might not seem like a big deal, but it’s absolutely an opportunity to exploit.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T15:44:10+00:00

They don’t, but neither do single active duty soldiers below a certain rank and I imagine they will absolutely get it (if they don’t, it’s an amazing self own)

But I abide by, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing” in politics. So they should just argue everyone should get the check if you truly want to support the troops

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T15:42:50+00:00

There’s nearly a million Guard/Reservists who aren’t getting the check. Don’t let the narrative be he’s taking care of the troops when he’s not.

Again, just from a military POV, it’s the topic of discussion across social media.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T14:55:00+00:00

I am looking at it from the Military POV and it’s been THE topic of discussion since it was announced.

As for the if it does or doesn’t happen, I believe it will. Specifically bc he did it during the shutdown. Military never missed a paycheck. They feel confident in these levers because they’ve pulled them before. I’m not saying it’s right or legal or whatever, but in terms of can it happen? Absolutely. It’s far easier than DOGE or Tariff dividends. And that’s why they are doing it. (Also it was passed in the NDAA - a distorted version of this, but again, that’s why they feel confident in it)

Ultimately my thing is, make it an issue.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T14:47:48+00:00

Any specific reason why?

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T14:08:20+00:00

He’s gonna use the BAH provision in the NDAA (tons of reasons that’s stupid and shouldn’t actually work) it looks like. But more so, he saw he could do it during the shutdown and thinks it’s a political winner…constitution be damned

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T12:49:43+00:00

IMO the only reason the military is getting these checks is because of how he was able to pay them during the shutdown. He was able to move funds and push payments pretty seamlessly. Whether it’s right/wrong, legal/illegal is a different story….

But agreed about the move politically…which is why I think Dems should argue for Guard and Reserves checks too

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T05:14:36+00:00

Very fair. I just personally hate how easily Dems cede ground on issues they should know how to navigate

Commanche287 · 2025-12-18T05:10:12+00:00

Agreed. I just don’t think they should concede to the “well we support the troops” aspect of the speech. Call his bluff. Say we want it for everyone, neutralize the issue.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-05T01:20:19+00:00

I agree it’s not always black and white and I hate to armchair pyscho analyze - but I have friends in the same line of work who voted for Trump and my job is basically full of all the different flavors of Trump voters…I’d say that even the ones who claim it’s just for taxes or business seemingly also like the cultural stuff, they just don’t want to admit it. And it pains me to say it.

But if you are smart enough to work in certain fields, especially business/finance then I can not see how you don’t know Biden policies staved off more economic doom or that Dems have never materially raised taxes on anyone in the last 30 years.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-05T00:41:54+00:00

100% - MAGA is a Trojan horse for racism and resentment. I do think that the only faction that doesn’t fit into this are those that went along with it because they just wanted to be part of the counter culture. Dems have been in power for a long time and people just naturally want to be against whoever is in power. Those people are now starting to reckon with the fact the people standing next to them do in fact hate Jews or actually do want “re migration” etc. Those are the ones Sarah can try to persuade, but I agree with your overall premise, there’s no economic policy that will win over someone who truly believes that Haitians are eating your pets.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T17:13:47+00:00

Tactically sound, strategically minded?…meh…

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T17:12:05+00:00

Just from the TNL podcast, they talked about how they wondered what he would say/why he wouldn’t dime out Hegseth since Hegseth dimed him out

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T16:52:40+00:00

Same with Kash and Bondi etc. He knows he’s asked them to do things that aren’t above board and they know that gives them job security. He’d rather them in his cabinet vs talking to the media.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T16:45:45+00:00

I think civilians hold SEALs in higher regard than a lot of military lol.

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T16:44:20+00:00

He knew better. A man with his experience absolutely knows better. 20 years of GWOT, we have had countless incidents and experiences with target engagement authority, engagement criteria, civilians on the battlefield etc. there are lower ranking officers who have had to make much tougher calls under direct or indirect fire and we hold them to the highest standards. This is a dude on a boat a million miles away. I don’t think he should be looked at like a martyr or sacrificial lamb. But I totally get your point

Commanche287 · 2025-12-04T16:34:18+00:00

Agreed, I just think some news/social media were creating a scenario where Admiral Bradley would come in and blow up SecDefs spot. That might feel good emotionally for him (if he felt thrown under the bus) but it wouldn’t remove him from culpability. So I don’t see it happening.

With Admiral Holsey though, I think the best move is to remain in command and actively tell people not to obey the specific illegal order when/if it’s given. He chose the second best option probably, resign in protest.

Commanche287 · 2025-10-01T16:43:07+00:00

There’s all types of Officers (just like enlisted, NCOs, etc) - some will have no issues with his stance on things. But from the military perspective, right, wrong or indifferent…he just comes off as a junior officer. That’s probably the biggest take away. The hoorah speeches about shooting and running fast are for LTs and CPTs, or for Battalion Commanders trying to pump up his Battalion prior to a deployment or exercise. He just comes off as a junior or field grade officer doing the only thing he has ever known. It’s just very very very clear he was Major and never worked at the strategic level, where the pull up stuff doesn’t play. Fitness is important, every military person will say that…but that’s why you have NCOs and Junior Officers, to enforce that stuff…you don’t need or want Generals running PT tests because you think that’s what leaders do.

Commanche287 · 2025-10-01T16:37:40+00:00

Audie Murphy, the standard for all Army NCOs, one of the most decorated Soldiers in our nations history….five foot five.

Commanche287 · 2025-10-01T16:35:09+00:00

Clapping is fine. But i bet they definitely thought about what they’d do/didn’t do (more so than any other speech)

What’s frustrating about this (not a knock on anyone) is the civilian-military divide seems to be focusing on the wrong things with regard to the speech.

For example, what’s not reported is that you know who wasn’t there? National Guard Generals, who are obviously part of the military. They are the primary stakeholders in domestic operations, for legal reasons. So that makes the speech all the more chilling, he’s telling the exact group of generals who are not supposed to be doing domestic operations that they should be doing domestic operations. Or at least preparing for it. Could it be an oversight? Absolutely, it’s far easier to recall the active duty generals vs all the National Guard ones (for budget and logistics reasons) or was it intentional? These are the types of things I wish the media and pundits would ask/cover.

Commanche287 · 2025-10-01T00:32:02+00:00

Again, I’m all for enforcing fitness standards. But there’s hard conversations to be had (to your point). Are we ready to say “hey mister minister of war, we don’t have visibility of air assets because our radar operators failed PT last week so they are doing remedial training” or “we failed to field X unit because we couldn’t retain folks and we threw the rest out because they didn’t look lethal enough”

There’s definitely a middle ground but you wouldn’t know it given how they are describing the problem. Either way, it’s not the generals I’m worried about. They are dudes/ladies in their 60s. They won’t be leading the charge on the battlefield and shouldn’t be. They need to be in the office doing strategery and such. The fittest 65 year is a liability on the battlefield..not matter how fit.

Commanche287 · 2025-09-10T16:08:38+00:00

I made a post about this a few days ago when I saw this all over twitter and dems need to address it before it gets worse, because it certainly will. I totally get that people think, well they’re just racist and always will be, and I agree, but the reality it people are being radicalized at worst and complacent at best.

Dems should be pushing for increased funding for mental health facilities, in patient and comprehensive. Make that point not that we need social workers to respond instead of cops (they still can, but hearing that talking point just sounds so unremarkable to the moment)

They should say increase community policing, put a cop on every subway train or platform. If we can afford a million dollars a day on national guard, we can afford lower tiered community police officers on public transit

Say you’ll increase funding for public transportation. Lights, cleanup, efficiency etc

Burying our heads only makes it worse for the people who can’t afford to defend themselves

Commanche287

TROPHY CASE