Space Force?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah the soldiers in Starship Troopers displayed a serious lack of tactics, too.

“We’ll land from our dropships and scatter randomly in all directions...

" we will just rub ourselves in sugar and scatter in an ant colony!"

That movie is horribad.

Taking bug anti air "that's it sir, shields depleted"

Well then, bucle up.

That was one of three books I took to South East Asia with me in 1970. The movie previews had me stoked. The movie was just pathetic. But I still get people who have never read the book calling RAH a fascist.

[Minimalist]

[vorlon13]

And....and....and.... what if they kneel during the anthem???????

They must kneel, but they have no knees . . . .

[zebo-the-fat]

The orange moron scares me

[Brian37]

The orange moron scares me

You and me both.

[Minimalist]

Too bad he doesn't scare the russkis.

[Brian37]

Too bad he doesn't scare the russkis.

Or the Kims.

[Angrboda]

In as much as this is just a reorganization of that segment of the U.S. Air Force that already takes care of such things, I don't know that it's anything to get excited about, nor particularly embarrassing.  Reading last night, there are some 38,000 personnel already employed in this effort, so maybe having their own organization and command structure makes sense.  I don't know that Trump is proposing anything beyond this.  The only part that gets me is that by talking about it in the way he and Pence do, it seems it's been brought up as much to provide photo ops as it is a serious project.

Um no, it points out the long term hypocrisy of the GOP bemoaning limited government, only to create new needless entities instead of funding the existing ones.

Yes it is embarrassing because it really is nothing more to act as a distraction to billionaire tax breaks they do not need, and giving a bullhorn to bigots.

As pointed out, it doesn't seem that they are necessarily creating anything new, but rather consolidating something that already exists. Even if it were something new, your claim about any hypocrisy is rather weak. Conservatives aren't arguing for no government, just that some of the responsibilities that government has undertaken are not ones that it should be responsible for. That's not inconsistent with insisting that government should be responsible for this or that thing, even in the absence of such handling of those responsibilities in the past. There is no inherent conflict there.

If you want to argue that it is only being used as a distraction, you're going to need something more substantial than just your belief that it is. Seeing that you haven't presented anything to indicate this is the case, I can only suspect this is yet another example of your using one issue to springboard into a vapid rant about an unrelated topic.