hokiewolf said:Oldsouljer said:Werewolf said:
They misunderstand; it was a DIVIDEND. There is a difference. ;-)INSANE!! President Trump is giving over 1 MILLION troops an extra $1,776 check for CHRISTMAS.
— Jack (@jackunheard) December 18, 2025
How does THE VIEW respond?
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: “He's thinking, if I give the soldiers get what they want, they'll do what I want. See?”
This woman is NUTS!! pic.twitter.com/irOsAi3Kt1
Yes, she's nuts and oddly, too ignorant of history to even know that she nearly has a valid point…..history abounds with examples of the dangers of bribing troops with funds above or apart from their properly established rates of pay. Particularly in Ancient Rome where emperors were routinely enthroned and dethroned as a matter of whether the legions and the Praetorians were satisfied with their bribes. True, the Roman Republican after which our modern nation was patterned on, didn't see this as often as in the later Empire, but it was things like this that caused Rome to transition from a Republic to an Empire.
os this actually additional pay or has he rebranded an already scheduled housing subsidy payment for political purposes? I have seen it called both. Either way, seems silly to project it as a bribe.
I hadn't checked. And I'm not characterizing it as a bribe per se but I can see why she seized on it as a "bribe". I would point out that at no time during my time in the harness, were uniformed personnel rewarded en masse with special financial compensation outside of base pay, skill and war zone pay and/or specific authorized add-ons like BAS and BAH), which makes this action rather unusual. But since the troops are likely to equate their windfall with Trump, I just naturally felt like discussing how money has often set the relationship historically between military forces and their head of state.
CALS grad
“Regulars, by God!”
“Regulars, by God!”
