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.

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.

This is no accident.

Someone is deliberately trying to destroy our civilization so that they can replace it with communism.

 

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.

did you graduate from a community college with a degree in Obvious Arts?

When people miss the obvious, sometimes you have to point out the obvious....

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?

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.

please show me where he said that...

 

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.

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.