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…



… 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.!!!!!

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.!!!!!

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.

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.



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