By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new policy requiring physical fitness tests for military personnel, which would include height and weight requirements. Newsom took to social media to criticize the policy, using it as an opportunity to mock President Donald Trump’s physique. Newsom posted a photo of Trump and a satirical image from his press office, implying the president’s weight would disqualify him under the new military standards. The governor’s posts, including a reference to Trump’s fondness for fast food, quickly gained traction and highlighted the president’s reported height and weight discrepancies.
Read the original article here
Newsom saying what we are all thinking…again, it’s difficult to ignore the commentary that’s emerged regarding Governor Newsom’s recent jab at Donald Trump’s physical appearance, particularly in the context of the broader discussion surrounding fitness standards, especially in military leadership. The comments on forums resonate with the sentiment that Trump’s physique, his draft-dodging history, and his perceived lack of respect for those who have served, present a stark contrast to the ideals of military readiness and leadership. The implication is clear: someone who has evaded military service and allegedly disparaged veterans should not be dictating or judging standards for others.
The condescending nature of such remarks is a point of contention, highlighting the disconnect between Trump’s public persona and the rigorous physical demands of military service. As many note, achieving the rank of General or Admiral demands decades of commitment and physical exertion, making the suggestion that an overweight individual, particularly one with Trump’s history, should be in charge of setting such standards, seem particularly absurd. Comments on the forums highlight that military weight standards are fairly restrictive, and some may be “taped” or flagged as overweight despite maintaining a strong, athletic physique, so the standards are arguably subjective.
It’s undeniable that the discussion around Trump’s physique and his fitness levels has become a topic of public discourse. It has opened a conversation about the standards of physical fitness, specifically in the military, and whether Trump’s alleged weight and physical condition align with these requirements. It is worth considering that Trump has not served in the military and his reported weight and physical condition have been a point of contention, especially in light of his draft avoidance and his reported comments about veterans.
The underlying idea appears to be that Trump’s physical appearance and history contradict his self-proclaimed image and claims to leadership. The reference to the “presidential fitness test” in public schools suggests a call for consistency and fairness, contrasting Trump’s lifestyle with the expectations placed on individuals in leadership roles. The comparison to Prince William’s physique, widely available on the internet, only reinforces the point, subtly highlighting the disparity in physical appearance.
This isn’t merely about physical fitness. The discussions delve deeper, questioning Trump’s credibility and character. The focus on his evasion of the Vietnam draft, his alleged disparagement of military personnel, and his general lack of respect for the sacrifices made by those in service, all contribute to a narrative of hypocrisy and a perceived lack of understanding of military values. The forum comments clearly illustrate the disconnect between Trump’s actions and the expectations placed on those who lead and represent the nation’s armed forces.
Newsom’s comments can be seen as a deliberate attempt to exploit this incongruity, using humor to highlight what many perceive as a lack of seriousness and fitness in a former leader. This approach, while arguably juvenile, has garnered attention and sparked debate. The assertion that such tactics are necessary to effectively counter Trump’s rhetoric highlights a shift in strategy from more traditional political approaches. The sentiment is that sometimes a more direct and, frankly, “dirty” approach is required to be heard.
The response to Newsom’s comments varies, but the general consensus suggests that his actions are both entertaining and effective. The emphasis is not necessarily on the substance of his statements but on the way he delivers them, mirroring Trump’s own style. The implication is that the best way to fight Trump is to fight fire with fire, embracing the absurdity of the situation and not being afraid to engage in the same types of personal attacks that Trump is known for.
The underlying criticism is that the media is not showing enough of the opposing viewpoint and is playing into Trump’s hands. The discussion around the “B word” (billionaires) and Trump’s lies shows that there are more serious policy issues being discussed and it’s being overshadowed by propaganda. There is a need for policy discussion but it’s hard to be heard over the noise, so one must also find a way to engage.
The observations also reveal a deep frustration with the state of political discourse. The comments express a weariness of the constant spectacle, the lack of serious debate, and the erosion of traditional values. The overarching theme is a call for a return to normalcy and a hope for leadership that reflects competence, integrity, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of the nation.
In the end, the fact that Newsom’s remarks are even a topic of discussion underscores the unusual state of contemporary American politics. The comments and memes shared on social media reflect the widespread sentiment that Trump’s fitness and character are not aligned with the responsibilities of leadership, and that those seeking to counter him must be willing to play the same game. Newsom’s strategy, whether viewed as brilliant or childish, has undeniably struck a chord, sparking conversations and debates about politics.