2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on November 23, 2025, 07:08:50 PM
-
A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtRLsRWsac
Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.
My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.
If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).
-
so they can "suggest" things, but trump cannot?
dem goalposts be mobile...
A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtRLsRWsac
Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.
My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.
If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).
-
so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...
A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtRLsRWsac
Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.
My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.
If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).
-
i doubt that the brass at HPD would want one of their officers to be threatening the commander-in-chief...
so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...
-
My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.
If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).
No it is not. Despicable.
-
Normally I’m not a narc, but then they went and shot Charlie.
Screenshotting this one
-
My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.
If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).
What does this mean? He is the Commander in Chief. What military rules about "statements" that the POTUS must follow if he is the Chief?
-
sedition
/sĭ-dĭsh′ən/
noun
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
3. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
*******************
So these 5th columnists are firmly in sedition territory, but U.S. code appears to require specific acts in furtherance of the call to treason in order for there to be grounds for prosecution.
So Trump rage-tweeted incorrectly, as there is no evidence that they have committed acts in furtherance of their call to insurrection.
Apparently under military code the death sentence is a possibility for the overt acts.
So what did we learn here:
1. Trump rage-tweets, I guess he can’t help it.
2. The Democrat party (as evidenced in the House) is composed of about half openly committed seditious insurrectionists who wish to overthrow our government in favor of Socialism / Communism, and the other half are just not openly so.
3. So now when Democrats hurl the F-word at us because we are anti-Communists, we can with proof in hand call them traitors.
That’s about it.
Wake me up when any of these traitors are arrested and legally prosecuted.
As for your comment about assassinating the President being justifiable on this basis, well, this is why eventually, unfortunately, civil conflict with you and yours is inevitable, as to paraphrase General Sherman, war is the remedy you have chosen. We will give you your fill of it….
JUST LIKE LAST TIME
-
EEF gonna use the "daydream" defense too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCxrIaGEuo
-
When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal. According to the UCMJ, the order can not be ignored unless the action is undeniably illegal based on common understanding of the law. Firing live rounds on civilians at a protest without being fired upon would be illegal. Torturing and killing prisoners would be illegal.
Expecting a private or sergeant to know which orders to follow and which to ignore is ridiculous. There's a chain of command for a reason. You follow the order unless you know it's illegal, but you still have to report it up the chain and have evidence to back you up. Or you can ignore the order, be arrested, go to trial, and then present your evidence. Either way, the order was probably carried out by the other soldiers, just not with you.
You have a duty to disobey orders you know to be illegal, but that doesn't mean you won't face consequences. You don't need a video to tell you that. All military members are educated in the rules and punishments contained in the UCMJ.
Anyone who was ever in the military would know that.
As for sedition, that's exactly what this is. Telling soldiers to disobey orders they disagree with by labeling them illegal is an attempt to overthrow the military's chain of command. These were not 'suggestions." They were instructions.
-
To me, these 6 demorats only managed to weaken the military and the chain of command.
What do you suppose their message intent was by posting what they did.
Their hate for the POTUS is so great that they felt "the need" to remind military personnel that it is "ok to disobey illegal orders".
These 6 demorats, aside from one or two of them being in the CIA or some other crap agency, were high ranking officers.
They should know better. But no, these pukes went on Yoo Boob of all places, to broadcast to ALL military personnel and civilians (who are pretty clueless as to how the military works) about not following illegal orders.
Let me tell you from a perspective of a lowly E-5 Sergeant. That's what I was. I was in charge of a team of 5 soldiers. If my squad leader tells me to get ready for a ready reaction mission, I do so. I don't question. At my level we put trust in those above us. We follow orders.
The burden of if an order is illegal falls on the shoulders of flag officers, far above the rank and file of grunt soldiers.
Yet these 6 pukes, who clearly should have known better, let their TDS cloud their better judgement. And broadcasted it to the rank and file. All they did was destroy the discipline and trust that enlisted soldiers put on the NCO's and Officers that lead them.
These people are cowards, pukes, and traitors. Hiding behind the 1st. Amendment. Just because you can open your fuckin mouth doesn't mean you should. Those who never served will never understand this.
This coming from a low ranked grunt who knows that once trust and discipline is gone, soldiers will die on the battlefront. Last thing we want on our minds is second guessing.
-
When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal. According to the Ucmj, the order can not be ignored unless the action is undeniably illegal based on common understanding of the law. Firing live rounds on civilians at a protest without being fired upon would be illegal. Torturing and killing prisoners would be illegal.
Expecting a private or sergeant to know which orders to follow and which to ignore is ridiculous. There's a chain of command for a reason. You follow the order unless you know it's illegal, but you still have to report it up the chain and have evidence to back you up. Or you can ignore the order, be arrested, go to trial, and then present your evidence. Either way, the order was probably carried out by the other soldiers, just not with you.
You have a duty to disobey orders you know to be illegal, but that doesn't mean you won't face consequences. You don't need a video to tell you that. All military members are educated in the rules and punishments contained in the UCMJ.
Anyone who was ever in the military would know that.
As for sedition, that's exactly what this is. Telling soldiers to disobey orders they disagree with by labeling them illegal is an attempt to overthrow the military's chain of command. These were not 'suggestions." They were instructions.
:thumbsup: :shaka:
Those of us who served, know.
Those of us who didn't, don't.
-
so they can "suggest" things, but trump cannot?
dem goalposts be mobile...
Point to me where anyone in congress suggested executing the president. The video from the congressmen didn't even contain a suggestion.
-
so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...
So on a gun rights forum where one of the main arguments for gun rights is as a check against a tyrannical government you are taking issue with me saying we might have to resort to using firearms if the government turns tyrannical;?
-
So on a gun rights forum where one of the main arguments for gun rights is as a check against a tyrannical government you are taking issue with me saying we might have to resort to using firearms if the government turns tyrannical;?
The President is NOT "the government."
-
What does this mean? He is the Commander in Chief. What military rules about "statements" that the POTUS must follow if he is the Chief?
What I was saying is that what the congressmen said in the video is taken straight out of military regulations. That statement is both protected by the first amendment and entirely legal.
-
sedition
/sĭ-dĭsh′ən/
noun
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
3. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
*******************
So these 5th columnists are firmly in sedition territory, but U.S. code appears to require specific acts in furtherance of the call to treason in order for there to be grounds for prosecution.
So Trump rage-tweeted incorrectly, as there is no evidence that they have committed acts in furtherance of their call to insurrection.
Apparently under military code the death sentence is a possibility for the overt acts.
So what did we learn here:
1. Trump rage-tweets, I guess he can’t help it.
2. The Democrat party (as evidenced in the House) is composed of about half openly committed seditious insurrectionists who wish to overthrow our government in favor of Socialism / Communism, and the other half are just not openly so.
3. So now when Democrats hurl the F-word at us because we are anti-Communists, we can with proof in hand call them traitors.
That’s about it.
Wake me up when any of these traitors are arrested and legally prosecuted.
As for your comment about assassinating the President being justifiable on this basis, well, this is why eventually, unfortunately, civil conflict with you and yours is inevitable, as to paraphrase General Sherman, war is the remedy you have chosen. We will give you your fill of it….
JUST LIKE LAST TIME
Dictionary definition isn't relevant, here is seditious conspiracy in the US code. There isn't sedition, just seditious conspiracy. Trump isn't a lawyer though so I will give him some wiggle room on that one.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Since when does reciting a military regulation amount to inciting a rebellion? Granted you have the "two or more persons" part but the rest is absent. Plus criminal law doesn't trump the 1st amendment.
If what the congressmen said really was a crime why didn't Trump have the DOJ arrest them immediately? Am I committing sedition right now when I point out said military regulation?
I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment.
-
The President is NOT "the government."
And who would be the leader of a tyrannical US government, the speaker of the house, the chief justice of the supreme court?
-
please show me where i said someone in congress suggested executing the president...
Point to me where anyone in congress suggested executing the president. The video from the congressmen didn't even contain a suggestion.
-
exactly the plot of "a few good men"
lol
To me, these 6 demorats only managed to weaken the military and the chain of command.
What do you suppose their message intent was by posting what they did.
Their hate for the POTUS is so great that they felt "the need" to remind military personnel that it is "ok to disobey illegal orders".
These 6 demorats, aside from one or two of them being in the CIA or some other crap agency, were high ranking officers.
They should know better. But no, these pukes went on Yoo Boob of all places, to broadcast to ALL military personnel and civilians (who are pretty clueless as to how the military works) about not following illegal orders.
Let me tell you from a perspective of a lowly E-5 Sergeant. That's what I was. I was in charge of a team of 5 soldiers. If my squad leader tells me to get ready for a ready reaction mission, I do so. I don't question. At my level we put trust in those above us. We follow orders.
The burden of if an order is illegal falls on the shoulders of flag officers, far above the rank and file of grunt soldiers.
Yet these 6 pukes, who clearly should have known better, let their TDS cloud their better judgement. And broadcasted it to the rank and file. All they did was destroy the discipline and trust that enlisted soldiers put on the NCO's and Officers that lead them.
These people are cowards, pukes, and traitors. Hiding behind the 1st. Amendment. Just because you can open your fuckin mouth doesn't mean you should. Those who never served will never understand this.
This coming from a low ranked grunt who knows that once trust and discipline is gone, soldiers will die on the battlefront. Last thing we want on our minds is second guessing.
-
When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal.
Non-sequitur. Not only did they not mention any specific order but it also doesn't indicate it was an order already given, it could be about some future order Trump issues.
Expecting a private or sergeant to know which orders to follow and which to ignore is ridiculous. There's a chain of command for a reason. You follow the order unless you know it's illegal, but you still have to report it up the chain and have evidence to back you up. Or you can ignore the order, be arrested, go to trial, and then present your evidence. Either way, the order was probably carried out by the other soldiers, just not with you.
There certainly is a level of difficulty in clearly identifying an illegal order for a low level soldier. Anyone refusing an order is going to have to mount a defense justifying their actions, they can't simply claim it is illegal and expect to get off scott free.
As for sedition, that's exactly what this is. Telling soldiers to disobey orders they disagree with by labeling them illegal is an attempt to overthrow the military's chain of command. These were not 'suggestions." They were instructions.
Except that is not what they said.
Even if they had suggested soldiers disobey a specific order that wasn't clearly an illegal order, the military doesn't answer to congress. Any competent soldier knows they answer to the president and that a congressman has no authority to tell them what order to follow or not follow.
These congressmen aren't stupid, they didn't come out and make a video that would constitute a crime.
-
jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...
exactly the plot of "a few good men"
lol
-
please show me where i said someone in congress suggested executing the president...
You said they suggested things. I pointed out what they suggested (wasn't actually a suggestion) wasn't comparable to what Trump suggested. So I thought maybe you were referring to some other suggestion by some other democrat congressmen thus my question.
-
jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...
Show me where it goes against anything I said. What facts did I ignore?
-
Dictionary definition isn't relevant, here is seditious conspiracy in the US code. There isn't sedition, just seditious conspiracy. Trump isn't a lawyer though so I will give him some wiggle room on that one.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Since when does reciting a military regulation amount to inciting a rebellion? Granted you have the "two or more persons" part but the rest is absent. Plus criminal law doesn't trump the 1st amendment.
If what the congressmen said really was a crime why didn't Trump have the DOJ arrest them immediately? Am I committing sedition right now when I point out said military regulation?
I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment.
Why do you waste our time on meaningless puffery like this?
You’ve dropped by to soil our carpets again, as is your proclivity, and been duly swatted with a wet newspaper.
See you next time you jump your fence :wave:
-
jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...
Sh*t, I remember basic training and the hours of classroom instruction of the UCMJ and the threats from the Drill Sergeant if we ever had the audacity to fall asleep.
Believe me, no military person needs 6 puke demorats to tell (remind?) them about "illegal orders". F*ck them.
-
‘Member back when you said it’s ok to assassinate the president? ‘Member?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/187/896/43d.gif)
-
Why do you waste our time on meaningless puffery like this?
You’ve dropped by to soil our carpets again, as is your proclivity, and been duly swatted with a wet newspaper.
See you next time you jump your fence :wave:
Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.
I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?
As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.
-
And who would be the leader of a tyrannical US government, the speaker of the house, the chief justice of the supreme court?
It could be the VP after the president is ousted. There's no way to answer that, since the list of alternative scenarios don't necessarily end up with Trump being in charge.
-
Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.
I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?
As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.
You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.
:geekdanc:
-
You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.
:geekdanc:
You tried to warn me, but noooo, I claimed he was just misunderstood.
You were both patient and right - have a good one!
-
I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.
Here we go again.
-
I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.
Here we go again.
Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).
But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths. Wish it weren’t that way.
-
Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).
But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths. Wish it weren’t that way.
His MO is to steer every thread into being about him in some way. What he said, what he meant to say, what he didn't say, how he's the only one here speaking objectively, and on and on ad nauseam. Narcissism at its finest.
Welcome to the party, Pal! :shaka:
-
It could be the VP after the president is ousted. There's no way to answer that, since the list of alternative scenarios don't necessarily end up with Trump being in charge.
True. Doesn't matter who is the leader of a tyrannical government as far as the question goes about the use of force to remove the leader of that government from power.
-
You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.
:geekdanc:
I don't get mad very easily, certainly not from internet trolling nor from Kalihi's response.
As far as making it about me or vague comments, that is all in your head. This clearly wasn't about me and it clearly wasn't vague. I gave a very specific stance on this story.
I think you just don't have a rebuttal so you constantly have to cover for that by trying to paint it as being about me. I just have never figured out whether you do it as a troll or an immature reaction to an argument you don't like.
-
I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.
Here we go again.
I am glad I entertain you.
-
The Pentagon is looking into allegations against Senator Kelley for his participation with 5 other stupids of their "illegal orders" video.
Senator Kelley, among other things, mentioned "We are just doing our jobs."
Oh really. You are a congressman, Senator. You are no longer in the military. How about leaving the military to do what they do best. Believe me, they do not need to be reminded of their job.
Now Senator, please do YOUR JOB. Jan. 30th is right around the corner. If you do your job right, you will help avoid another shutdown by you and your colleagues.
For once do something right. Please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbdCBNjF1Q
-
I am glad I entertain you.
If it’s any consolation I take you seriously. It’s actually super disturbing that you aren’t concerned about losing your job because enough people in the department think the same way.
Our state government has clearly been infected by a dangerous ideology and they would kill us all if they thought they could get away with it.
-
Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).
But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths. Wish it weren’t that way.
You are reading into something that isn't there.
I do not profit from clicks like one might on other social media and I obviously do not post with the intention of feeling validated by a crowd of like-minded people so I do not have some ulterior motive, I am not deceiving anyone with such tactics as interspersing reasonable sounding arguments. Dishonesty is not within my nature and I have no motive, nothing to gain here, by tricking you. Not sure what I would be tricking you into anyway... Confuse you into becoming a moderate conservative?
Meaningless back and forths? I find meaning in two or more different ideas challenging each other but if you do not that's fine. Do you find Charlie Kirk's change my mind type discussions meaningless as well?
What I find meaningless is a bunch of people in an echo chamber patting each other on the back for repeating tribal mantras. I am not saying that is you, just referring to what forums like this would be if no one ever shared a position that wasn't in line with what the majority thought.
Flapp is dishonest and will have you believe I am making it about me, despite a complete absence of any evidence of such. Nothing about this post is about me, not until flapp made it about me. Rather blatant dishonesty to attack someone and when they defend themselves claim they are making it about themselves but flapp doesn't shy away from dishonest debate tactics.
-
The Pentagon is looking into allegations against Senator Kelley for his participation with 5 other stupids of their "illegal orders" video.
What could come of it though? Senator Kelly doesn't fall under the authority of the Pentagon and the Pentagon isn't the DOJ so I am wondering what could come of a Pentagon investigation?
-
While you guys go back and forth on feelings, Pete Hegseth will consider court martial proceedings toward Senator Kelley.
I was wondering why only Kelley is being singled out for this but there was another video that said Kelley is retired military while the others are either not military retired or are members of those stupid alphabet agencies.
Not sure why that exempts them from some kind of seditious charges.
edited to add: The video mentioned the Pentagon will re-activate Kelley to active duty status so he can stand trial for court martial.
-
If it’s any consolation I take you seriously. It’s actually super disturbing that you aren’t concerned about losing your job because enough people in the department think the same way.
Our state government has clearly been infected by a dangerous ideology and they would kill us all if they thought they could get away with it.
So your theory here is that I am a paid operative of some local law enforcement agency sent here to disrupt a local internet forum where a dozen or so people in Hawaii complain about democrats by arguing a moderate conservative position? Oh and that I would kill you if I could get away with it? What about the more probable explanation, that I just disagree and am not afraid to say when I do?
Your imagination is entertaining I just don't want to get sucked down these rabbit holes because they are so often speculative and circumstantial at best but they never end and therefore can never be settled. Just don't have the time or energy to go down all of them.
-
FAFO.
Senator Kelley, for ex-military you are pretty stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhyXG-xzLXw
-
please show me where he said that...
So your theory here is that I am a paid operative of some local law enforcement agency sent here to disrupt a local internet forum where a dozen or so people in Hawaii complain about democrats by arguing a moderate conservative position? Oh and that I would kill you if I could get away with it? What about the more probable explanation, that I just disagree and am not afraid to say when I do?
Your imagination is entertaining I just don't want to get sucked down these rabbit holes because they are so often speculative and circumstantial at best but they never end and therefore can never be settled. Just don't have the time or energy to go down all of them.
-
While you guys go back and forth on feelings, Pete Hegseth will consider court martial proceedings toward Senator Kelley.
I was wondering why only Kelley is being singled out for this but there was another video that said Kelley is retired military while the others are either not military retired or are members of those stupid alphabet agencies.
Not sure why that exempts them from some kind of seditious charges.
edited to add: The video mentioned the Pentagon will re-activate Kelley to active duty status so he can stand trial for court martial.
I tried to find an answer to the question and came across a CNN article where a legal professor stated:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics/kelly-recall-service-pentagon#:~:text=Steve%20Vladeck%2C%20a%20professor%20of,to%20court%2Dmartial%20retired%20servicemembers.
Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a CNN legal analyst, said that a court martial for Kelly is technically a viable option for the Pentagon because three different appellate courts have upheld that it’s constitutional to court-martial retired servicemembers. But the Kelly case “is pretty powerful proof” of why that should not be an option, Vladeck said.
“Going all the way back to the Founding, we’ve been wary of the exercise of military jurisdiction over civilians — so much so that the Supreme Court has struck down statutes authorizing courts-martial of, e.g., former servicemembers; military contractors; and the dependents of servicemembers,” Vladeck said. “Retired servicemembers differ in that they remain at least theoretically subject to recall, but it still makes no sense to subject individuals to military jurisdiction in perpetuity just because, at some point in the past, they were on active duty.”
I read some more legal websites and there were a few cases where retired military members were charged under the UCMJ but the difference is that what they were accused of doing were crimes whether under regular law or military law. One was rape and the other was a child porn case whereas that the congressmen did in the video was not a crime on the civilian side even if it may have violated the UCMJ so these cases aren't the best thing to compare this issue to.
That at least helps understand how it would be theoretically possible for the Pentagon to do something but the precedent it could set would be pretty concerning. Under the UCMJ adultery is illegal, could a retired soldier who commits adultery be re-activated in order to then be charged? How else could this be used and abused by future administrations? Could a democrat re-activate a retired servicemember to keep them from running for an office? Could a democrat president re-activate a retired service member to punish them for something they said against a democrat president? What we are talking about is trying to use the UCMJ to punish/control speech of anyone who has ever served in the military before and giving any president the power to do that is very concerning.
What specific UCMJ code do you think he violated?
I didn't respond to your initial post because you were basically making the argument that the video was terrible to make. I can certainly see the arguments that the video was not the right way of approaching the issue or that it was not something they should have done while my post was critical about Trump's response so I didn't reply. But since you mentioned sedition I will point out that there is no way this meets the crime of sedition (seditious conspiracy) by any stretch of the wording of the law and if it did, that would open pandora's box into prosecuting what is currently considered protected free speech.
As far as why Kelly is being singled out it could be because he is the most prominent of the congressmen in the video. He's been to combat, been to space, was among a name of people as a democratic presidential candidate, etc. Maybe they are picking on the biggest one to make an example out of?
-
please show me where he said that...
::) ::) ::)
-
You are reading into something that isn't there.
I do not profit from clicks like one might on other social media and I obviously do not post with the intention of feeling validated by a crowd of like-minded people so I do not have some ulterior motive, I am not deceiving anyone with such tactics as interspersing reasonable sounding arguments. Dishonesty is not within my nature and I have no motive, nothing to gain here, by tricking you. Not sure what I would be tricking you into anyway... Confuse you into becoming a moderate conservative?
Meaningless back and forths? I find meaning in two or more different ideas challenging each other but if you do not that's fine. Do you find Charlie Kirk's change my mind type discussions meaningless as well?
What I find meaningless is a bunch of people in an echo chamber patting each other on the back for repeating tribal mantras. I am not saying that is you, just referring to what forums like this would be if no one ever shared a position that wasn't in line with what the majority thought.
Flapp is dishonest and will have you believe I am making it about me, despite a complete absence of any evidence of such. Nothing about this post is about me, not until flapp made it about me. Rather blatant dishonesty to attack someone and when they defend themselves claim they are making it about themselves but flapp doesn't shy away from dishonest debate tactics.
The meaningless back and forth posts are the threads you drag off topic to argue about things unrelated to the issue. You know, all the times you said if someone says something insulting to you or says something you disagree with, you're going to respond in kind? That's the meaningless back and forth.
As for truthfulness, you started this topic with a comment that plainly says shooting Trump may be justified. No equivocation of qualification other than "if he continues down this path." That could mean tomorrow or never. Yet, you crossed the line into assassinations being justified.
Posting that opinion was how you made this all about you and your interpretation of the second amendment.
"I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment."
That's not fact-based. That's all about you and your interpretation. Show ONE reliable source that follows your reasoning. Otherwise, you and ONLY YOU are promoting assassination whether it's now or in the future -- doesn't matter when. Our government is constructed so no one person is crowned king. If Trump suffered a catastrophic health event tomorrow and dies, the government would not stop. Same result "in the future" if he tried to take control of the entire government. He may have the military at his disposal, but he can't use it to effect a coup d'état. He'd need all the military leaders in his camp to make sure they all supported him before they would obey such actions.
Yep, this is you making incendiary comments to become the focus of the issue rather than discussing the issue in the real world.
-
why the eye rolls?
others have said it previously, but hvy said nothing of the sort
unless you can prove otherwise...
::) ::) ::)
-
why the eye rolls?
others have said it previously, but hvy said nothing of the sort
unless you can prove otherwise...
He's behind on his monthly quota for disruptive posts.
The eye roll reply counts as one.
-
So your theory here is that I am a paid operative of some local law enforcement agency sent here to disrupt a local internet forum where a dozen or so people in Hawaii complain about democrats by arguing a moderate conservative position? Oh and that I would kill you if I could get away with it? What about the more probable explanation, that I just disagree and am not afraid to say when I do?
Your imagination is entertaining I just don't want to get sucked down these rabbit holes because they are so often speculative and circumstantial at best but they never end and therefore can never be settled. Just don't have the time or energy to go down all of them.
1. You advocated for assassinating the president over a policy disagreement
3. Left wing violence is off the charts recently, so there is absolutely no question about the intent to incite.
2. You aren't concerned about it affecting your career or you freedom, which means you believe your comrades in government will give you cover.
Therefore it's safe to assume the Hawaii state government has been infected by a dangerous ideology and can only be solved with mass layoffs.
(https://images.timesnownews.com/thumb/msid-153087711,thumbsize-70254,width-1280,height-720,resizemode-3/153087711.jpg)
-
He's behind on his monthly quota for disruptive posts.
The eye roll reply counts as one.
Wrong, the eye roll only indicates I didn't miss his post, it just wasn't worth responding to.
-
focus
eye rolls ARE a response...
Wrong, the eye roll only indicates I didn't miss his post, it just wasn't worth responding to.
-
focus
eye rolls ARE a response...
Anytime he quotes someone's post, types or uploads something, then hit's the Post button , it's a response.
But, i'm sure he'll be glad to engage in a meaningless back-and-forth exchange trying to prove me wrong.
-
1. You advocated for assassinating the president over a policy disagreement
No I didn't. I stated that if Trump continues down this path into that in the future an assassin's bullet may be justifiable. Talking about a hypothetical future is not advocating for his assassination. If you found a person looking into your window at night and said to him "If you break into my house I will shoot you" that wouldn't be a threat or advocating for his death. Additionally this has nothing to do with a policy disagreement, it had to do with Trump's tossing out the idea of executing congressmen over a disagreement about the legality of military orders.
3. Left wing violence is off the charts recently, so there is absolutely no question about the intent to incite.
No qualm with the first half of the sentence however as for the second half, you cannot use the general rise of left wing violence as proof of a specific left wing person's intent. Furthermore there was nothing they said that would incite violence, at best it would incite some soldiers to not follow orders which obviously isn't violence.
2. You aren't concerned about it affecting your career or you freedom, which means you believe your comrades in government will give you cover.
Am I concerned about it affecting my career or my freedom? No because I have said nothing that is either illegal or violates any of the rules of my employer. There is nothing anyone would need to cover for, I know the bounds of free speech and what constitutes a criminal threat and I stay well within those bounds.
Therefore it's safe to assume the Hawaii state government has been infected by a dangerous ideology and can only be solved with mass layoffs.
That, my friend, is a non-sequitur.
-
focus
eye rolls ARE a response...
Touche, enjoy your big win. :thumbsup:
-
Touche, enjoy your big win. :thumbsup:
(https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/07/14/09/13-ce278179f0644a6f8c25df8bafa1c7d9.jpg)
-
The meaningless back and forth posts are the threads you drag off topic to argue about things unrelated to the issue.
You play the victim card better than a liberal. Did you not notice who started this topic? The only one dragging it off topic is you.
You know, all the times you said if someone says something insulting to you or says something you disagree with, you're going to respond in kind? That's the meaningless back and forth.
If someone disagrees with me and we engage the points of contention I don't know why you are characterizing that as meaningless. If someone insults me and I insult back perhaps that is meaningless back and forth but that would make you just as guilty (if not more) as me.
As for truthfulness, you started this topic with a comment that plainly says shooting Trump may be justified. No equivocation of qualification other than "if he continues down this path." That could mean tomorrow or never. Yet, you crossed the line into assassinations being justified.
Are you saying that force against a tyrannical leader is never justifiable?
Posting that opinion was how you made this all about you and your interpretation of the second amendment.
Posting an opinion makes it about oneself? By that definition almost everyone who posts in this section is making it about themselves since they are usually giving an opinion.
"I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment."
That's not fact-based. That's all about you and your interpretation. Show ONE reliable source that follows your reasoning. Otherwise, you and ONLY YOU are promoting assassination whether it's now or in the future -- doesn't matter when. Our government is constructed so no one person is crowned king. If Trump suffered a catastrophic health event tomorrow and dies, the government would not stop. Same result "in the future" if he tried to take control of the entire government. He may have the military at his disposal, but he can't use it to effect a coup d'état. He'd need all the military leaders in his camp to make sure they all supported him before they would obey such actions.
Fact based? I used a logical line of reasoning to undermine your position. There is not some statistic or news story to cite here.
"He may have the military at his disposal, but he can't use it to effect a coup d'état."
Because never in history has a leader used a portion of the military to take control? Not a history buff are you?
Yep, this is you making incendiary comments to become the focus of the issue rather than discussing the issue in the real world.
An incendiary comment? Perhaps, but the rest is wrong and unfounded. I am discussing the issue in the real world, tyrannical leaders don't become so overnight. You are trying to make this about me otherwise you would attack the stance I presented but instead you attack me, like you often, but not always, do.
How would you have taken it if Biden, as president, had suggested Trump be executed for something that was not even a crime?
-
i'll let you have the last post in this aside...
Touche, enjoy your big win. :thumbsup:
-
I've been reading some of the comments on social media. Many are saying the video saying not to obey illegal orders is and of itself not illegal.
Ok. Agreed. So WTF was the video made for? Commenting on the obvious just for shits and giggles?
No. The video was saying without saying that Trump's orders were illegal. Snakes in the grass.
-
I've been reading some of the comments on social media. Many are saying the video saying not to obey illegal orders is and of itself not illegal.
Ok. Agreed. So WTF was the video made for? Commenting on the obvious just for shits and giggles?
No. The video was saying without saying that Trump's orders were illegal. Snakes in the grass.
There's no such thing as a deep state you paranoid conspiracy freak, except there is and that's a good thing.
"Elissa Slotkin is a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst who served three tours in Iraq alongside the U.S. military, working as a Middle East analyst and militia expert.
Fluent in Arabic and Swahili, she began her intelligence career at the CIA after earning a master’s degree in international affairs from Columbia University in 2003.
Her time at the CIA included roles as a political analyst and intelligence briefer from 2003 to 2005, followed by leadership of a CIA assessment team in Iraq from 2006 to 2007.
Slotkin’s national security career extended beyond the CIA, including positions on the National Security Council under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, where she served as director for Iraq policy.
She later held senior roles at the Department of Defense, culminating in her service as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs from 2015 to 2017, overseeing policy related to Russia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Her background as a CIA analyst has been central to her political identity and has drawn scrutiny, particularly in November 2025 when she co-released a video with other national security veterans urging military and intelligence personnel to resist any "illegal orders" from President Donald Trump.
Critics, including former CIA operations officer Bryan Dean Wright, accused her of running a sophisticated propaganda operation leveraging her intelligence expertise to influence the military and intelligence communities.
Slotkin defended the video as a warning about unlawful orders, though she acknowledged no specific illegal order had been issued.
She reported a significant increase in death threats following the controversy, prompting Capitol Police to assign her 24/7 security"
-
Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.
I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?
As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.
One way to understand what I am trying to say to you is to note for you that no one here thinks that Trump’s rage-tweet about executing them was correct or a good idea.
The guy is an iconoclast with respect to the usual kabuki dance of civility and respect Dems demand after they shit all over our country and Constitution, often times with astroturfed violence.
Homey don’t play that game. At his best he brutally trolls them, and at his worst, he rages, expressing how most of the country feels about these traitors.
So your initial premise that those who generally support what this administration is trying to do to save our country likewise actually line up behind such comments - like villagers marching through the night with torches, was paper-thin from the git go.
After the first few fun punches to the head, there’s no there-there.
That’s what is meant by meaningless puffery.
No one here is a simpleton. If you want to fight - and who doesn’t from time to time - try to find something real you perceive about people like us to criticize. Then maybe something of value can come of it.
If that seems too much work (likely it is), then maybe you’re on the wrong track to begin with.
-
lol
don't tell him all our secrets...
One way to understand what I am trying to say to you is to note for you that no one here thinks that Trump’s rage-tweet about executing them was correct or a good idea.
The guy is an iconoclast with respect to the usual kabuki dance of civility and respect Dems demand after they shit all over our country and Constitution, often times with astroturfed violence.
Homey don’t play that game. At his best he brutally trolls them, and at his worst, he rages, expressing how most of the country feels about these traitors.
So your initial premise that those who generally support what this administration is trying to do to save our country likewise actually line up behind such comments - like villagers marching through the night with torches, was paper-thin from the git go.
After the first few fun punches to the head, there’s no there-there.
That’s what is meant by meaningless puffery.
No one here is a simpleton. If you want to fight - and who doesn’t from time to time - try to find something real you perceive about people like us to criticize. Then maybe something of value can come of it.
If that seems too much work (likely it is), then maybe you’re on the wrong track to begin with.
-
One way to understand what I am trying to say to you is to note for you that no one here thinks that Trump’s rage-tweet about executing them was correct or a good idea.
The guy is an iconoclast with respect to the usual kabuki dance of civility and respect Dems demand after they shit all over our country and Constitution, often times with astroturfed violence.
Homey don’t play that game. At his best he brutally trolls them, and at his worst, he rages, expressing how most of the country feels about these traitors.
So your initial premise that those who generally support what this administration is trying to do to save our country likewise actually line up behind such comments - like villagers marching through the night with torches, was paper-thin from the git go.
After the first few fun punches to the head, there’s no there-there.
That’s what is meant by meaningless puffery.
No one here is a simpleton. If you want to fight - and who doesn’t from time to time - try to find something real you perceive about people like us to criticize. Then maybe something of value can come of it.
If that seems too much work (likely it is), then maybe you’re on the wrong track to begin with.
No matter how many times I've tried to train/condition/convince EEF to pay more attention to what Trump does, and to take what he says with a grain of salt, his TDS still forces him to focus on Trump's naughty words.
You can't cure someone of TDS when they think Trump is actually Hitler.
-
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAj60ky2_o
-
How embarrassing. Using a movie to make their point. @3:58 :rofl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKPNiQF6TAE
-
Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.
I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?
As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.
P.S. I missed your condemnation of the intentional call to sedition and insurrection within the armed services on the part of these traitorous Dems.
If it’s buried somewhere in all the above, I am duly apologizing here for the next sentence:
That you pounce on the response to this outrage while tacitly approving the outrage itself, is the screaming indictment of your full and active membership in this 5th column domestic terror threat within our country.
Why do you suppose we don’t clearly see that instantly?
Your insurrection is blind to its screaming obviousness to us.
This is why it’s being ripped to pieces in real time, which in turn prompts these desperate acts on your part … and the downward spiral is only just beginning.
-
This is the part where they try to provoke us into killing each other so that they can swoop in with digital totalitarianism and save the day.
-
I listen to Victor Davis Hanson podcasts a lot nowadays.
Dunno if that's a good thing or not.
Yesterday he was talking about how great republics of the past got destroyed not from outside forces, but by within. He made references to the current situation with Omar Ilhan and her Somali constituents in Minnesota and the issue of those asshats sending taxpayer dollars to terrorist organizations back to their homeland hellhole.
Immigrants seeking to live as citizens in America cannot serve two masters. We are a nation of people that have come from countless other nations. But we all decided to become Americans, no matter what race, no matter what religion, nor creed. But apparently this is not so lately.
His current depiction of the state of affairs in our country and it's relation to past history makes me sad.
So much similarities happening now in our nation are the same ills that brought down the great republics like Rome.
And the subject of this thread is an example of forces destroying our nation from within.
-
I listen to Victor Davis Hanson podcasts a lot nowadays.
Dunno if that's a good thing or not.
Yesterday he was talking about how great republics of the past got destroyed not from outside forces, but by within. He made references to the current situation with Omar Ilhan and her Somali constituents in Minnesota and the issue of those asshats sending taxpayer dollars to terrorist organizations back to their homeland hellhole.
Immigrants seeking to live as citizens in America cannot serve two masters. We are a nation of people that have come from countless other nations. But we all decided to become Americans, no matter what race, no matter what religion, nor creed. But apparently this is not so lately.
His current depiction of the state of affairs in our country and it's relation to past history makes me sad.
So much similarities happening now in our nation are the same ills that brought down the great republics like Rome.
And the subject of this thread is an example of forces destroying our nation from within.
Yes, our enemy here is our most ancient one.
It’s good that you point this out, as it cannot be overstated.
This is why I call them meatpuppets. They are acting out their instructions completely oblivious to the reality that they ARE puppets - of primal evil.
It is often said that the greatest victory of the Devil is in convincing almost all people that he doesn’t exist.
For each of us, our major concern should be that we too are not unwitting puppets of the same deceiver.
-
Due to the timing of the statement, a reasonable/logical person can assume they're talking about Trumps deployment of troops to help with crimes.
The DNC is using whataboutism/moving goalpost by saying "we just ment any illegal order shouldn't be followed". Funny becuase they don't make the same statements as often thought the year.
-
Due to the timing of the statement, a reasonable/logical person can assume they're talking about Trumps deployment of troops to help with crimes.
The DNC is using whataboutism/moving goalpost by saying "we just ment any illegal order shouldn't be followed". Funny becuase they don't make the same statements as often thought the year.
There’s also Venezuela which could pop off at any moment, and seeing as how they are supplying over a million barrels a day to China it would make sense for the CCP to activate their compromised swamp critters and Manchurian Candidates.
(https://tom-mcgee.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/92742187_65f65ac492.jpg)
-
that's been going on for months
it's about the drug boats and venezuela
Due to the timing of the statement, a reasonable/logical person can assume they're talking about Trumps deployment of troops to help with crimes.
The DNC is using whataboutism/moving goalpost by saying "we just ment any illegal order shouldn't be followed". Funny becuase they don't make the same statements as often thought the year.
-
There’s also Venezuela which could pop off at any moment, and seeing as how they are supplying over a million barrels a day to China it would make sense for the CCP to activate their compromised swamp critters and Manchurian Candidates.
(https://tom-mcgee.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/92742187_65f65ac492.jpg)
All evil explanations are plausible with them.
What you have to rule out is anything else.
Nice image choice, BTW.
Say, hasn’t it been awhile since you posted a super-hot amazon chick from the past?
-
All evil explanations are plausible with them.
What you have to rule out is anything else.
Nice image choice, BTW.
Say, hasn’t it been awhile since you posted a super-hot amazon chick from the past?
I also find intelligence quite attractive. One can do amazing things with makeup and surgery these days, but the fix for stupid remains elusive.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Angela_Lansbury_in_The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray_trailer.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbrNqtElrtc
-
I also find intelligence quite attractive. One can do amazing things with makeup and surgery these days, but the fix for stupid remains elusive.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Angela_Lansbury_in_The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray_trailer.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbrNqtElrtc
I was hoping for something a little less classy and significantly more burlesque - but I figure you know that and chose this instead, so I’ll go with what’s good for me - Mahalo!
… she was white hot in Gaslight though ….. damn.
-
… she was white hot in Gaslight though ….. damn.
Ha!
From now on I'm going to read EEF's posts as if they were spoken in Gregory Anton's voice. Kudos for that!
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Gregory_Anton
-
Angela Lansbury
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
(https://i.imgur.com/3kpuMl2.png)
-
Ha!
From now on I'm going to read EEF's posts as if they were spoken in Gregory Anton's voice. Kudos for that!
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Gregory_Anton
Dude - that’s brilliantly hilarious!
For anyone else who’s wondering WTF? - get a load of this guy’s voice & imagine him reading an EEF post … you’ll start looking forward to when he shows up!
“I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fFfBB4WCFJY
Well, maybe not actually look forward to it, but at least make it pretty funny in your head when he does.
Too bad there isn’t a voice file we could throw it into and repost ha ha
-
Angela Lansbury
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
(https://i.imgur.com/3kpuMl2.png)
Nice job Mr. Flap!
-
One way to understand what I am trying to say to you is to note for you that no one here thinks that Trump’s rage-tweet about executing them was correct or a good idea.
Granted social media comments might not be the best measure but there does appear to be no shortage of people who support Trump's TS posts on this story. If indeed no one on this forum shares the belief that these congressmen should be executed or that Trump's comments were defensible that would give me a bit of hope.
The guy is an iconoclast with respect to the usual kabuki dance of civility and respect Dems demand after they shit all over our country and Constitution, often times with astroturfed violence.
Homey don’t play that game. At his best he brutally trolls them, and at his worst, he rages, expressing how most of the country feels about these traitors.
I get gallows humor and I get locker room talk. I cringe when he says he says something in private like "grab em by the pussy" or calls a reporter piggy or insubordinate (reporter doesn't answer to the president). Those are unprofessional behavior but that is about it. The reason this comment is so much worse, in my opinion, is that it is a red flag for a tyrannical government. Given our founding and strong constitutional structure for check on power and freedom of speech, I get worried anytime someone at that level of power suggests executing a political opponent. Imagine if Biden had even just jokingly suggested Trump be executed for his alleged crimes. As the saying goes, power corrupts so I have to consider the possibility that Trump is willing to abuse his powers in such a manner. Best case scenario is obviously Trump was "just kidding" but the worst case scenario is tossing out the bill of rights.
So your initial premise that those who generally support what this administration is trying to do to save our country likewise actually line up behind such comments - like villagers marching through the night with torches, was paper-thin from the git go. After the first few fun punches to the head, there’s no there-there. That’s what is meant by meaningless puffery.
No one here is a simpleton. If you want to fight - and who doesn’t from time to time - try to find something real you perceive about people like us to criticize. Then maybe something of value can come of it.
If that seems too much work (likely it is), then maybe you’re on the wrong track to begin with.
It was never my position that any support for Trump equates to support for everything he does. I like a fair number of things he has done so far so I am not one to lump everything Trump does as all bad or all good. I strongly believe in objectivity though and that means calling balls and strikes.
P.S. I missed your condemnation of the intentional call to sedition and insurrection within the armed services on the part of these traitorous Dems.
If it’s buried somewhere in all the above, I am duly apologizing here for the next sentence:
That you pounce on the response to this outrage while tacitly approving the outrage itself, is the screaming indictment of your full and active membership in this 5th column domestic terror threat within our country.
Why do you suppose we don’t clearly see that instantly?
Your insurrection is blind to its screaming obviousness to us.
This is why it’s being ripped to pieces in real time, which in turn prompts these desperate acts on your part … and the downward spiral is only just beginning.
I don't think I would have made the video in the same way they did (if I were a congressman) but I do not condemn the video. The video itself and Trump's response are two separate things. Trump's response is much worse than what is in the video and why I posted about it over a minor criticism of the manner in which they made the video. It is like a road rage assault after someone didn't use their blinker, sure the person should have used their blinker but it doesn't really need to be pointed out when judging the action of the violent driver.
Here are the facts that matter:
#1 What they said falls within the bounds of protected speech under the first amendment.
#2 What they said does not fall under the definition of treason or sedition (seditious conspiracy)
#3 They didn't mention any specific order to be ignored
#4 They have no authority over the military meaning even if they had suggested a specific order be disobeyed, soldiers would have no obligation to obey, it isn't an improper countermanding order.
#5 They recited a military regulation. It is not a crime to remind a servicemember of a military regulation even if there was an implication that Trump may have or may in the future issue an order that should be refused.
Imagine Harris had won the election and her handlers (see I can play conspiracy theory too!) told her she could just order the military to confiscate firearms from Americans. There would be thousands of videos reminding soldiers that they could ignore illegal orders.
Desperate acts? Now that is a pure figment of your imagination.
5th column membership? LOL, that is rich. A philosophical belief in the notion that bad ideas don't justify violence hardly makes me supportive of domestic terrorism. Charlie Kirk famously said something along the lines of "when we stop talking we start fighting". Your notion suggests violence is ok as long as your side believes it is being "attacked" by ideas or a change in culture. I'll stop there as it is rather off topic, we can continue in the thread you started if you want to press that issue more.
-
Here are the facts that matter:
#1 What they said falls within the bounds of protected speech under the first amendment.
#2 What they said does not fall under the definition of treason or sedition (seditious conspiracy)
#3 They didn't mention any specific order to be ignored
#4 They have no authority over the military meaning even if they had suggested a specific order be disobeyed, soldiers would have no obligation to obey, it isn't an improper countermanding order.
#5 They recited a military regulation. It is not a crime to remind a servicemember of a military regulation even if there was an implication that Trump may have or may in the future issue an order that should be refused.
Imagine Harris had won the election and her handlers (see I can play conspiracy theory too!) told her she could just order the military to confiscate firearms from Americans. There would be thousands of videos reminding soldiers that they could ignore illegal orders.
Your 5 facts of the matter mean these people made a video that essentially comes down to being a nothing burger.
So why make the video? Why spend the time, expense, and energy to make it?
Your analogy about harris implies that the Seditious 6 made the video because they feel Trumps orders on those drug boat runners were illegal.
Nobody makes a video for nothing. It was a passive-aggressive and disgustingly cowardly attempt to say something while covering their fricken asses.
edited to add: Not to mention seeding doubt among the military rank and file while undermining the Commanding Officers control of military discipline and unit integrity.
-
The OP doesn't understand how orders are processed from the POTUS to the troops. It's not as simple as the POTUS saying something and then it is said at first formation. The orders process is deliberate, analyzed thoroughly through multiple levels of command and then finally issued.
That video was nothing more than a veiled attempt to cast doubt about the President's guidance.
-
The OP doesn't understand how orders are processed from the POTUS to the troops. It's not as simple as the POTUS saying something and then it is said at first formation. The orders process is deliberate, analyzed thoroughly through multiple levels of command and then finally issued.
That video was nothing more than a veiled attempt to cast doubt about the President's guidance.
Could also be a signal flare to start the open warfare part of the color revolution. Hopefully the tardtifas are starting to realize they are useful idiots and cannon fodder.
-
… I don't think I would have made the video in the same way they did (if I were a congressman) but I do not condemn the video. The video itself and Trump's response are two separate things….
… Desperate acts? Now that is a pure figment of your imagination…
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg-s-msn-com.akamaized.net%2Ftenant%2Famp%2Fentityid%2FAA1GlykE.img%3Fw%3D768%26h%3D512%26m%3D6&f=1&ipt=43de476b95927c3b74f69cb6f6aad63bd21667f23584fa2b470b4a2d1c86540b)
… 5th column membership? LOL, that is rich. A philosophical belief in the notion that bad ideas don't justify violence hardly makes me supportive of domestic terrorism…
You make my points most eloquently.
-
You make my points most eloquently.
I'm glad EEF is here. Without him we wouldn't know which direction to look.
So far we have CIA agents making seditious proclamations followed up by a CIA-trained Afghani terror attack on the day before Thanksgiving.
The internal coup is going hot, and unless there are mass deep state arrests things will continue to escalate.
Clearly we have too many intel agencies and some of them are beyond reforming.
-
The OP doesn't understand how orders are processed from the POTUS to the troops. It's not as simple as the POTUS saying something and then it is said at first formation. The orders process is deliberate, analyzed thoroughly through multiple levels of command and then finally issued.
That video was nothing more than a veiled attempt to cast doubt about the President's guidance.
PERFECT explanation.!!!!! :shaka:
There is a reason Officers are extremely vetted for moral character, mental discipline, and physical excellence.
This is to ensure that the rank and file have confidence and trust in their leaders.
Those f*ckn 6 only accomplished to cast doubt amongst the RANK AND FILE military members, the VERY BACKBONE of an effective and successful military force.
-
PERFECT explanation.!!!!! :shaka:
There is a reason Officers are extremely vetted for moral character, mental discipline, and physical excellence.
This is to ensure that the rank and file have confidence and trust their leaders.
Those f*ckn 6 only accomplished to cast doubt amongst the RANK AND FILE military members, the VERY BACKBONE of an effective and successful military force.
Yes, and for a specific purpose…
-
I'm glad EEF is here. Without him we wouldn't know which direction to look.
So far we have CIA agents making seditious proclamations followed up by a CIA-trained Afghani terror attack on the day before Thanksgiving.
The internal coup is going hot, and unless there are mass deep state arrests things will continue to escalate.
Clearly we have too many intel agencies and some of them are beyond reforming.
Agreed - as a late boomer, born just before JFK, this growing realization has been a hard pill to swallow.
-
Agreed - as a late boomer, born just before JFK, this growing realization has been a hard pill to swallow.
I'm still wondering why EEF believes members of Congress are afforded freedom of speech when broadcasting veiled instructions for the military to violate their oath to follow the orders of those appointed over them (which includes Trump), yet Trump is a tyrant and dictator if he says what's on his mind. Arguably, Congress has the power to pass legislation and to withhold federal funding if Trump does anything they feel is unconstitutional. If it's already within his authority based on existing law, they can draft a bill to change that law and limit his power.
Funny how Trump going after drug trafficking criminals is unconstitutional, but Obama intentionally targeting and killing a US citizen in a drone strike is fine and dandy.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/
-
I'm still wondering why EEF believes members of Congress are afforded freedom of speech when broadcasting veiled instructions for the military to violate their oath to follow the orders of those appointed over them (which includes Trump), yet Trump is a tyrant and dictator if he says what's on his mind. Arguably, Congress has the power to pass legislation and to withhold federal funding if Trump does anything they feel is unconstitutional. If it's already within his authority based on existing law, they can draft a bill to change that law and limit his power.
Funny how Trump going after drug trafficking criminals is unconstitutional, but Obama intentionally targeting and killing a US citizen in a drone strike is fine and dandy.
EEF is exactly what he appears to be.
I.e. a Leftist who thinks that he can spread his poison around here by mixing in doses of “American talk.”
Insinuate yourself into the structure, taking full advantage of our open society, and then subvert it. It’s in Leftist 101.
No amount of words can hide what a man actually is.
This is why he wastes our time:
‘O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’
Robert Burns
-
EEF is exactly what he appears to be.
I.e. a Leftist who thinks that he can spread his poison around here by mixing in doses of “American talk.”
Insinuate yourself into the structure, taking full advantage of our open society, and then subvert it. It’s in Leftist 101.
No amount of words can hide what a man actually is.
This is why he wastes our time:
‘O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’
Robert Burns
Careful! Calling him a Lefty is guaranteed to get you 3 more pages of back-and-forth nonsense in which he argues how he's not aligned with any party. He refuses to grasp the truth that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck, it doesn't matter what you choose to call it.
-
Bill gets it.
When your position on a political issue is destroyed by Bill Maher, you ought to know you're on the wrong side of the debate.
https://youtu.be/ebnlqYay-dU
-
Your 5 facts of the matter mean these people made a video that essentially comes down to being a nothing burger.
So why make the video? Why spend the time, expense, and energy to make it?
Your analogy about harris implies that the Seditious 6 made the video because they feel Trumps orders on those drug boat runners were illegal.
Nobody makes a video for nothing. It was a passive-aggressive and disgustingly cowardly attempt to say something while covering their fricken asses.
edited to add: Not to mention seeding doubt among the military rank and file while undermining the Commanding Officers control of military discipline and unit integrity.
I wouldn't say it is a nothing burger, I would describe it as a reminder for soldiers to do the right thing if/when such a situation arises.
Why make the video? I can only speculate of course but I think they made the video because they believe that Trump may have or may in the future give an illegal order and they want soldiers to remember that they are obligated to disobey an illegal order as well as inspire the courage to disobey an illegal order. Every soldier knows they have to disobey an illegal order but identifying an illegal order in the heat of the moment is not always so easy and having the balls to tell your superior that you are refusing their order is not easy either. Seeing as how a soldier can be prosecuted for following an illegal order it never hurts to remind them.
Since they never gave any detail it is hard to know exactly what area(s) they may have had in mind, could have been troop deployments to US cities, could have been the strikes on the drug boats, or something else. However with the allegations that Hegseth gave an order to kill the crew who survived the missile there is a pretty clear instance of an illegal order so it is possible they made the video knowing these allegations had already been made.
I don't think it undermines or places seeds of doubt in command and control to remind soldiers of this regulation. I think that is reading too deep into their comments and I think troops are smart enough not to think they have cart blanche to disobey orders just because of this video.
If the six had wanted to plant seeds of doubt they could include many other things to attack Trump's mental state or make some substantive comment to undermine Trump. There would be far more effective ways to undermine Trump that would still be protected by free speech than to remind soldiers they have to disobey illegal orders.
-
The OP doesn't understand how orders are processed from the POTUS to the troops. It's not as simple as the POTUS saying something and then it is said at first formation. The orders process is deliberate, analyzed thoroughly through multiple levels of command and then finally issued.
That video was nothing more than a veiled attempt to cast doubt about the President's guidance.
Yeah, no.
I understand that orders aren't handed down directly from Trump to the soldier pulling the trigger.
-
EEF is exactly what he appears to be.
I.e. a Leftist who thinks that he can spread his poison around here by mixing in doses of “American talk.”
Insinuate yourself into the structure, taking full advantage of our open society, and then subvert it. It’s in Leftist 101.
No amount of words can hide what a man actually is.
This is why he wastes our time:
‘O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’
Robert Burns
Not sure what "American talk" is but you couldn't be more wrong.
I am a conservative but not one who puts it on as a badge of tribal loyalty. I don't abandon conservative values as do many MAGA when daddy Trump tells them to. Remember when Trumps said he could shoot someone in Time's square and wouldn't lose any voters? That is an insult to his own followers because he is pointing out that they either wont hold him accountable or don't possess the mental capability to recognize he did something wrong. It is people like that who allow cults to form or who elect dictators due to their oratorical gifts. Some people hold up the fundamental freedoms consistently while others do so when it suits their tribe. The bombing of the boats, the reaction of Trump to this video shows who truly believes and who puts a cult leader ahead of the values of this country. I pray that you are not the latter.
Guns wont protect us from a tyrannical government if you support it's rise to power.
I waste your time? I didn't realize I was forcing you to reply.
-
I'm still wondering why EEF believes members of Congress are afforded freedom of speech when broadcasting veiled instructions for the military to violate their oath to follow the orders of those appointed over them (which includes Trump), yet Trump is a tyrant and dictator if he says what's on his mind. Arguably, Congress has the power to pass legislation and to withhold federal funding if Trump does anything they feel is unconstitutional. If it's already within his authority based on existing law, they can draft a bill to change that law and limit his power.
Wrong.
Citizens have the freedom of speech even if they are elected members of congress.
They didn't instruct the military to violate their oath. Why do you make plainly false statements (lies) like that?
Show me where I said Trump is a tyrant or dictator because he speaks his mind.
Funny how Trump going after drug trafficking criminals is unconstitutional, but Obama intentionally targeting and killing a US citizen in a drone strike is fine and dandy.
Funny how Trump is going tough on people bringing drugs into the country and then commutes the sentence of a drug dealer responsible for millions of pounds being brought in over the years. You still think he really cares about fighting drugs?
I often say suggestions that Trump's criminal charges should be left up to the people to decide during the election. Why not let the voters decide for these 6 congressmen?
Obama's targeting of a US citizen with a drone strike is substantially different as to not be comparable. Yes it does raise some ethical and legal questions but comparing the two is just being obtuse whataboutism.
-
… I don't think I would have made the video in the same way they did (if I were a congressman) but I do not condemn the video. The video itself and Trump's response are two separate things….
….I am a conservative but not one who puts it on as a badge of tribal loyalty. I don't abandon conservative values as do many MAGA when daddy Trump tells them to….
I waste your time? I didn't realize I was forcing you to reply.
Yes, this is precisely what I’m talking about.
You claim you are “a conservative” while supporting a heinous video of 6 Dem members of congress inciting the armed services to disobey lawful orders from their chain of command. Notice I said lawful orders - because no unlawful orders were cited in the video (of course).
I’ve never seen a more vile act in congress, including this Democrat staffer filming himself being buggered in the Judiciary Committee hearing room in the Senate.
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/12/screen-shot-aidan-maese-czeropski-73821111-e1702754261584.jpg)
Then you throw in
….I don't abandon conservative values as do many MAGA when daddy Trump tells them to….
Nice transtifa touch there,
Comrade
PS - Sorry about being so heavy, I see this is just your way of having fun. Will adjust accordingly.
I still say you’re a Regressive, but you’re our Regressive. Blood is thicker than soy lattes.
-
please cite your sources that it was an illegal order...
I wouldn't say it is a nothing burger, I would describe it as a reminder for soldiers to do the right thing if/when such a situation arises.
Why make the video? I can only speculate of course but I think they made the video because they believe that Trump may have or may in the future give an illegal order and they want soldiers to remember that they are obligated to disobey an illegal order as well as inspire the courage to disobey an illegal order. Every soldier knows they have to disobey an illegal order but identifying an illegal order in the heat of the moment is not always so easy and having the balls to tell your superior that you are refusing their order is not easy either. Seeing as how a soldier can be prosecuted for following an illegal order it never hurts to remind them.
Since they never gave any detail it is hard to know exactly what area(s) they may have had in mind, could have been troop deployments to US cities, could have been the strikes on the drug boats, or something else. However with the allegations that Hegseth gave an order to kill the crew who survived the missile there is a pretty clear instance of an illegal order so it is possible they made the video knowing these allegations had already been made.
I don't think it undermines or places seeds of doubt in command and control to remind soldiers of this regulation. I think that is reading too deep into their comments and I think troops are smart enough not to think they have cart blanche to disobey orders just because of this video.
If the six had wanted to plant seeds of doubt they could include many other things to attack Trump's mental state or make some substantive comment to undermine Trump. There would be far more effective ways to undermine Trump that would still be protected by free speech than to remind soldiers they have to disobey illegal orders.
-
Even Mark Kelly knows the video premise is absurd. You can't let military members decide which orders they want to follow, and which ones they refuse to follow. The military doesn't work like that.
Likening today's administration to Nazi Germany is also a terrible analogy. While it's true many officers were sentenced to die for "just following orders," the orders they followed were against the moral, ethical and legal standards held by most civilized countries. To say that Trump is breaking the law in the same way as Hitler -- firing on drug runners' boats -- could not be further from reality. The Jews were not coming from a foreign country and committing criminal acts against Germany. The same is not true of the Venezuelan drug smugglers.
The ONLY argument I see is whether the punishment fits the crime. Taken at its most basic form, the drug runners are just transporting contraband, which in and of itself doesn't warrant lethal force. But when you look at the larger picture, the purpose of their trip is irrelevant. The fact we need to focus on is the complete disregard for our borders and laws. We don't know if one of these boats carries explosives, and the target might be military harbors or US Navy or commercial vessels in open waters. They could be transporting a Nuke to be detonated in the middle of Fleet Week in NYC. Simply breaching our borders and trying to outrun our protection forces should always be met with force -- just like you shoot at a vehicle approaching a military base which shows no intention of stopping.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., was pressed on whether he would refuse orders if he was
still in uniform on Sunday after the senator – along with five other Democratic
lawmakers – encouraged service members to "refuse illegal orders" from the Trump
administration.
"You were a pilot yourself, you flew 39 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait. You
are asking officers in the field to make really tough calls about the legality of what they
are being asked to do. So I want to put the question to you, if you were still in uniform,
if you received an order to strike suspected drug boats overseas and kill everybody on
board, would you refuse that order in real time?" NBC host Kristen Welker asked Kelly
during "Meet the Press."
Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Reps. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander,
D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Jason Crow, D-Colo., all appeared in a video
encouraging members of the military to refuse "illegal orders" earlier this month. The
video was called out by President Donald Trump, who accused the lawmakers of
seditious behavior.
Kelly said he sank two ships during his service and added, "never once did I question
whether those orders were legal or illegal."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mark-kelly-pressed-on-whether-he-would-refuse-orders-if-he-was-still-in-uniform/ar-AA1RrCLN
-
Obama's targeting of a US citizen with a drone strike is substantially different as to not be comparable. Yes it does raise some ethical and legal questions but comparing the two is just being obtuse whataboutism.
Sorry but if you may, please explain why obama's order is different than Hegseth's order. I don't think it is obtuse whataboutism, although I did look it up to try to understand what it means. I'm not as well read as most of you on this board so would appreciate you helping me out. I don't see the difference. And I don't believe anyone made a video back then reminding the military that they can dis-obey illegal orders.
-
please cite your sources that it was an illegal order...
and do not use WaPo as your source...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tpRybdmDI
-
Sorry but if you may, please explain why obama's order is different than Hegseth's order. I don't think it is obtuse whataboutism, although I did look it up to try to understand what it means. I'm not as well read as most of you on this board so would appreciate you helping me out. I don't see the difference. And I don't believe anyone made a video back then reminding the military that they can dis-obey illegal orders.
Don’t be so modest.
You are right on target.
Most Americans can’t figure out what you understand, and if EEF one day decides to get serious about the necessity of truth in the world and in his life, instead of f^*king around, then he’d be asking for guidance from you, brother.
-
Don’t be so modest.
You are right on target.
Most Americans can’t figure out what you understand, and if EEF one day decides to get serious about the necessity of truth in the world and in his life, instead of f^*king around, then he’d be asking for guidance from you, brother.
It boils down to one thing: Either you can see the truth based on well-grounded values and principles, or you can't see it and then have to dissect every facet to analyze and agonize over technical and descriptive minutia until the original question itself is no longer clear.
This is why so many people rely on the courts and lawmakers to tell them what they should and should not do. They don't have the moral clarity to know which is which.
-
even the NYT is debunking the WaPo article...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szQE7FD8DGw
-
please cite your sources that it was an illegal order...
Lul.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
OP doesn't know what an operations order is.
OP doesn't know what effects are.
OP doesn't know what joint pubs are.
OP has no clue what he is talking about.
-
OP doesn't know what an operations order is.
OP doesn't know what effects are.
OP doesn't know what joint pubs are.
OP has no clue what he is talking about.
OP is an awkward troll working the graveyard shift at the Medical Examiners in Iwilei.
-
-
still waiting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw30h8XgkYs
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyqFAmvoevw&pp=ugUEEgJlbg%3D%3D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyqFAmvoevw
-
good thing no one here has TDS...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDHDJpw1MhM
-
damn
there was a JAG officer in the room giving opinions at the time of the first and second strike
i guess an HPD officer knows more about illegal orders than an actual US Navy lawyer...
-
damn
there was a JAG officer in the room giving opinions at the time of the first and second strike
i guess an HPD officer knows more about illegal orders than an actual US Navy lawyer...
yes
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23r2PXK3H94
-
cop V. SEAL...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcsX46lCDO8
-
cop V. SEAL...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcsX46lCDO8
i dunno. I remember one LEO told me academy was like going through SFAS.
-
There’s speculation that Trump is going after the black budgets which represent one of the last remaining sources of income for the deep state resistance. There’s no way that much product moves across our border without someone at the CIA getting a taste.
-
5-0 knows more than special forces too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIpaRn96Rr0
-
5-0 knows more than special forces too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIpaRn96Rr0
yes. They know more about laws than a Green Beret. SF Soldiers cant't write a ticket for speeding, jaywalking etc. Academy is pretty tough too.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eIDzpA9A3k
-
All of this hoopla is the left's effort to paint the current administration in a negative light. It is social engineering targeted towards next years mid-term elections.
The dims want to re-establish power so they can put meaningless and ineffective puppets like hyena and walz in office so they can continue the destruction of our republic and replace it with a wonderful socialist hellhole.
Something like the movie Hunger Games.
The haves with total control over the have-nots.
Where was the noise when obama did this exact same thing. Only with more collateral damage and destruction.
-
Kunstler with an interesting idea
Invoke the insurrection act and transfer all cases to military courts.
They won't be so forgiving towards sedition as the Obama/Biden swamp creatures.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jameshowardkunstler/p/when-they-say-democracy-they-dont
-
All of this hoopla is the left's effort to paint the current administration in a negative light. It is social engineering targeted towards next years mid-term elections.
The hatred of Trump is inseparable but it cannot ignored that the action presents serious constitutional questions with regards to due process and what force the president can authorize.
-
5-0 knows more than special forces too...
Apparently the coast guard does....
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QC160WOqp7Y
-
OP doesn't know what an operations order is.
OP doesn't know what effects are.
OP doesn't know what joint pubs are.
OP has no clue what he is talking about.
You are right that I have never been party to such a secret military operation so I fill my voids of knowledge with experts who have, actual legal experts who have sat in and advised on military strikes.
-
Sorry but if you may, please explain why obama's order is different than Hegseth's order. I don't think it is obtuse whataboutism, although I did look it up to try to understand what it means. I'm not as well read as most of you on this board so would appreciate you helping me out. I don't see the difference. And I don't believe anyone made a video back then reminding the military that they can dis-obey illegal orders.
Fair enough, I will explain why I think they are substantially different.
1. Obama's order targeted a completely different type of threat, an Islamic terrorist group intent on killing Americans (and others). Drug dealers, and their employees, at basically businessmen dealing in illegal goods. They aren't trying to kill Americans or bring about a religious war. They are trying to make money selling Americans something that Americans want. Drug dealers do of course play a role in the deaths of drug users but they are not a hostile nation or group trying to kill or terrorize Americans. They are a completely different threat.
2. Obama's orders fell under a congressional approval to target specific terrorist groups. IIRC the original authorization came while Bush was president and it has been continuously used to strike Islamic terrorist groups. There is some debate on whether presidents have been too liberal in using the approval to justify military strikes on targets over the years but the strikes are rooted in congressional approval. Trump's strikes, on the other hand, have no such legal basis. Trump designating them "narco terrorists" does not mean they suddenly fall under the congressional authorization that Obama used. The congressional authorization Obama used does not in any way cover these drug cartels. If Trump had gone to congress and gotten congressional approval then they would be more similar.
3. Obama's strikes were on targets that could not be readily captured, it would be very high risk to try and capture these people. These drug boats on the other hand could be much more easily intercepted. There is not the same need for lethal force since we can easily and relatively safely intercept these drug boats.
Additionally, capturing the drug boat crew serves to provide useful intelligence though that's not why Obama's strikes and Trump's strikes are substantially different.
-
please cite your sources that it was an illegal order...
I was not arguing that an illegal order had been given, I was saying that the allegation of what Hegseth's ordered constitutes an illegal order. In other words, if what was said about Hegseth's order is accurate, that would be an illegal order. I probably could have worded it clearer. Without knowing exactly what Hegseth said (or wrote) we don't know whether his order was illegal or not.
-
Yes, this is precisely what I’m talking about.
You claim you are “a conservative” while supporting a heinous video of 6 Dem members of congress inciting the armed services to disobey lawful orders from their chain of command. Notice I said lawful orders - because no unlawful orders were cited in the video (of course).
I’ve never seen a more vile act in congress, including this Democrat staffer filming himself being buggered in the Judiciary Committee hearing room in the Senate.
Then you throw in
….I don't abandon conservative values as do many MAGA when daddy Trump tells them to….
Nice transtifa touch there,
Comrade
PS - Sorry about being so heavy, I see this is just your way of having fun. Will adjust accordingly.
I still say you’re a Regressive, but you’re our Regressive. Blood is thicker than soy lattes.
Aww, I am touched.
Transtifa? Come up with that one all by yourself?
I support free speech even when I disagree with the speech, that is why I am a conservative. Secondly the video does not incite armed service members to disobey lawful orders so that is a false premise from the start. Reciting the UCMJ isn't illegal.
But lets say I agreed with you that this was terrible behavior by congressmen. Trump's comments are still way worse than anything Kelly said and an affront to the constitution.
-
it's cute how you ignore the fact that everyone else in the room states that hegseth never said "kill them alll" as alleged in the original story, yet you still claim that those sources are better than the statements of people who were actually in the room
and you are also ignoring this...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=57840.msg510720#msg510720
I was not arguing that an illegal order had been given, I was saying that the allegation of what Hegseth's ordered constitutes an illegal order. In other words, if what was said about Hegseth's order is accurate, that would be an illegal order. I probably could have worded it clearer. Without knowing exactly what Hegseth said (or wrote) we don't know whether his order was illegal or not.
-
Aww, I am touched.
Transtifa? Come up with that one all by yourself?
I support free speech even when I disagree with the speech, that is why I am a conservative. Secondly the video does not incite armed service members to disobey lawful orders so that is a false premise from the start. Reciting the UCMJ isn't illegal.
But lets say I agreed with you that this was terrible behavior by congressmen. Trump's comments are still way worse than anything Kelly said and an affront to the constitution.
Hey EEF
🎶 Have yourself
a merry little Christmas 🎶
-
Fair enough, I will explain why I think they are substantially different.
1. Obama's order targeted a completely different type of threat, an Islamic terrorist group intent on killing Americans (and others). Drug dealers, and their employees, at basically businessmen dealing in illegal goods. They aren't trying to kill Americans or bring about a religious war. They are trying to make money selling Americans something that Americans want. Drug dealers do of course play a role in the deaths of drug users but they are not a hostile nation or group trying to kill or terrorize Americans. They are a completely different threat.
2. Obama's orders fell under a congressional approval to target specific terrorist groups. IIRC the original authorization came while Bush was president and it has been continuously used to strike Islamic terrorist groups. There is some debate on whether presidents have been too liberal in using the approval to justify military strikes on targets over the years but the strikes are rooted in congressional approval. Trump's strikes, on the other hand, have no such legal basis. Trump designating them "narco terrorists" does not mean they suddenly fall under the congressional authorization that Obama used. The congressional authorization Obama used does not in any way cover these drug cartels. If Trump had gone to congress and gotten congressional approval then they would be more similar.
3. Obama's strikes were on targets that could not be readily captured, it would be very high risk to try and capture these people. These drug boats on the other hand could be much more easily intercepted. There is not the same need for lethal force since we can easily and relatively safely intercept these drug boats.
Additionally, capturing the drug boat crew serves to provide useful intelligence though that's not why Obama's strikes and Trump's strikes are substantially different.
Thanks for your explanation. While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.
-
Thanks for your explanation. While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.
Theyre tards. Simple explanation.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
You are right that I have never been party to such a secret military operation so I fill my voids of knowledge with experts who have, actual legal experts who have sat in and advised on military strikes.
which ops did they advise on?
-
which ops did they advise on?
He means those 'experts" CNN and MSNBC parade in front of the camera pretending to know more than every other expert who isn't trying to destroy Trump.
If EEF knows any of the experts he refers to personally and spends copious time picking their legally knowledgable brains, then i'm Santa Claus!
-
He means those 'experts" CNN and MSNBC parade in front of the camera pretending to know more than every other expert who isn't trying to destroy Trump.
If EEF knows any of the experts he refers to personally and spends copious time picking their legally knowledgable brains, then i'm Santa Claus!
Indeed
-
Senator Kelly is in deep doo-doo.
I had a feeling he was contemplating a 2028 run for POTUS. But his stupid video backfired. He forgot one thing.
He is a retired Captain of the US Navy and is subject to the UCMJ.
Therefore, his remarks in the video borders on sedition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS3l7GTDAdw&t=185s
-
which ops did they advise on?
Middel east ones but I don't recall the specifics. You are welcome to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics.
-
Thanks for your explanation. While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.
I am not in an uproar, I just have principles I actually hold, not principles when convenient.
-
I am not in an uproar, I just have principles I actually hold, not principles when convenient.
Lul
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
professionals call that "delusions of grandeur"
-
Middel east ones but I don't recall the specifics. You are welcome to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics.
Maybe start with the really easy specifics, like how to spell "Middle East."
Is it any wonder nobody here takes you seriously? You'll spend more time coming up with an insult to respond to this post than you spent understanding the topic and knowing which Ops you were referring to.
How long would it have taken for you to refresh your memory on which Ops instead of telling him to go look it up himself?
Of course, if you hadn't waited a whole month to reply, maybe the topic would still be fresh in your mind, and you'd have been able to post a relevant response besides stating the obvious, "You are welcome to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics." i suppose you're also free to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics, since you are the one who made the claim in the first place.
Lazy doesn't begin to describe your participation in these topics.
-
Maybe start with the really easy specifics, like how to spell "Middle East."
Is it any wonder nobody here takes you seriously? You'll spend more time coming up with an insult to respond to this post than you spent understanding the topic and knowing which Ops you were referring to.
How long would it have taken for you to refresh your memory on which Ops instead of telling him to go look it up himself?
Of course, if you hadn't waited a whole month to reply, maybe the topic would still be fresh in your mind, and you'd have been able to post a relevant response besides stating the obvious, "You are welcome to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics." i suppose you're also free to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics, since you are the one who made the claim in the first place.
Lazy doesn't begin to describe your participation in these topics.
Coming up with an insult? That's rich coming from you.
I must wonder though, do you nitpick my typo because you have no better argument to make? You didn't even refute anything I said rather you portray this as a popularity contest, something you have done before. Surely you don't think having a more common opinion on something makes you correct right?
How long would it have taken for me to refresh my memory? I would have had to listen to dozens of hours of to go see if he had mentioned some specific operation when he might not have mentioned any specific operation. Would it even matter if he mentioned a specific operation or is this just your way of trying to undermine the point without actually facing it? Does it matter which battles he served as a military legal advisor in? If I had named a specific one would you have suddenly accepted what he said or just moved the goalposts to some other way of ignoring something you don't want to hear?
Frankly I don't think the point or the facts matter to you at all. Ren may have been genuinely curious, but you notoriously just look to argue.
-
Coming up with an insult? That's rich coming from you.
I must wonder though, do you nitpick my typo because you have no better argument to make? You didn't even refute anything I said rather you portray this as a popularity contest, something you have done before. Surely you don't think having a more common opinion on something makes you correct right?
How long would it have taken for me to refresh my memory? I would have had to listen to dozens of hours of to go see if he had mentioned some specific operation when he might not have mentioned any specific operation. Would it even matter if he mentioned a specific operation or is this just your way of trying to undermine the point without actually facing it? Does it matter which battles he served as a military legal advisor in? If I had named a specific one would you have suddenly accepted what he said or just moved the goalposts to some other way of ignoring something you don't want to hear?
Frankly I don't think the point or the facts matter to you at all. Ren may have been genuinely curious, but you notoriously just look to argue.
It's impossible to undermine your point when you have none.
You won't listen to the same videos that you tell ren he's "welcome" to go listen to? Lazy.
And, assuming you already listened once, you can't recall a single example to answer his question? Must not have been a very good example if you can't recall anything about it.
Just stop arguing. You know the answer to Ren's question is "you don't know," because there's nothing there for you to know in the first place.
-
It's impossible to undermine your point when you have none.
You won't listen to the same videos that you tell ren he's "welcome" to go listen to? Lazy.
And, assuming you already listened once, you can't recall a single example to answer his question? Must not have been a very good example if you can't recall anything about it.
Just stop arguing. You know the answer to Ren's question is "you don't know," because there's nothing there for you to know in the first place.
Reminds me of The Core (film). The scene where 1 scientist was trying to word salad to answer a question and the other guy told him "i dont know". Referring him to just say that instead.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
It's impossible to undermine your point when you have none.
Wrong
You won't listen to the same videos that you tell ren he's "welcome" to go listen to? Lazy
Not lazy, just not necessary to make my point.
And, assuming you already listened once, you can't recall a single example to answer his question? Must not have been a very good example if you can't recall anything about it.
Non sequitur.
It is like saying I had a good pizza 2 months ago and then you ask me what type of cheese was on the pizza and if I don't have that information readily available it somehow undermines my review of the pizza.
Just stop arguing. You know the answer to Ren's question is "you don't know," because there's nothing there for you to know in the first place.
I literally told him I didn't know which ones. Are you picking dumb arguments because you have poor reading comprehension?
-
Reminds me of The Core (film). The scene where 1 scientist was trying to word salad to answer a question and the other guy told him "i dont know". Referring him to just say that instead.
i think that was when Col Iverson was asking what they thought of the images that were just ahead -- the scene where they were about to hit dead space inside the geode.
Col. Robert Iverson:
People. Doctors Zimsky and Keyes? You guys are our resident geophysicists, so what do you make of this?
Dr. Conrad Zimsky:
The mantle is a chemical hodgepodge of, a, variety of elements...
Dr. Ed 'Braz' Brazzelton:
Say it with me: "I don't know."
The Core has to be one of my favorite movies of the last 20 years.
-
Wrong
Not lazy, just not necessary to make my point.
Non sequitur.
It is like saying I had a good pizza 2 months ago and then you ask me what type of cheese was on the pizza and if I don't have that information readily available it somehow undermines my review of the pizza.
I literally told him I didn't know which ones. Are you picking dumb arguments because you have poor reading comprehension?
"i don't recall the specifics," is NOT the same as "I don't know."
The type of cheese falls under "I don't recall the specifics." "I don't know" would mean you had no idea what kind of cheese was used, but you ate it anyway.
Still struggling with English definitions of words, huh? One deals with memory, and the other deals with ignorance.
-
i think that was when Col Iverson was asking what they thought of the images that were just ahead -- the scene where they were about to hit dead space inside the geode.
Col. Robert Iverson:
People. Doctors Zimsky and Keyes? You guys are our resident geophysicists, so what do you make of this?
Dr. Conrad Zimsky:
The mantle is a chemical hodgepodge of, a, variety of elements...
Dr. Ed 'Braz' Brazzelton:
Say it with me: "I don't know."
The Core has to be one of my favorite movies of the last 20 years.
Correct.
-
"i don't recall the specifics," is NOT the same as "I don't know."
\
A distinction without a difference. You are really stretching for the tinniest of wins here. Tough day at work?
-
\
A distinction without a difference. You are really stretching for the tinniest of wins here. Tough day at work?
Wrong. But you'd have to understand English to get the meanings.
BTW, I'm retired, Bozo. Your punches never seem to land. Maybe you should try another way to entertain yourself besides online arguing. You suck at it.
:geekdanc: :rofl: