As a former soldier in the US Army, I remember watching films about this in basic training. Every soldier does indeed have a duty to defend the Constitution and disobey unlawful orders. So the Democratic lawmakers were simply reminding the service members to uphold their oaths and not engage in anything unlawful. Such exhortations are, in my opinion, constitutionally protected free speech.
'In a feverish flurry of social media posts and reposts Thursday morning, President Donald Trump expressed support for imprisoning and executing a group of Democratic lawmakers for what he termed “seditious behavior.”
The behavior in question? Urging U.S. military service members to defend the U.S. Constitution and disobey orders that violate the law.'
ref: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-calls-for-executing-democrats-over-message-to-military/
'What on Earth did the Dems do/say now' was my first reaction. So I went to truth social, and I found.... this:
Democratic veterans in Congress urge service members to refuse unspecified unlawful orders
https://truthsocial.com/@WashingtonExaminer/posts/115579789920906826
Followed by Trump's posts:
This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582451169685243
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715
Maybe Trump is running short of distractions or scapegoats?
It's not Trump who started the distraction.
Which SPECIFIC laws, if any, did the law makers state were in danger of being broken?
Or was their video oddly vague and foreboding and politically convenient, but not very specific.
For the rest of the thread, it'll be interesting if anyone can actually state just which SPECIFIC laws, if any, those particular law makers stated, expressly, were feared to be in danger of being broken. Or were the laws, indeed, "unspecified."
And please note -- I'm not looking for what some future poster THINKS the law makers "meant" or "were thinking about" or "could have said, if they had wanted to." I'm looking for what the law makers ACTUALLY stated to be the laws in danger. If any. And if they couldn't be specific, what was the point?
I expect I might see downvotes or scathing laugh emojis long before seeing any actual answer to my question about specificity.
Let's see if I'm wrong. After all, that's always possible!
This subject seems to me to be consistent with what appears to be the talking point of the day. Fortunately, the American military doesn't really need such baleful lectures, I think. They aren't run by stupid people, and I believe they receive plenty of appropriate training. But I guess it might be good politics for some to lecture them anyway.
By the way, how about that latest jobs report, eh? :) Did that manage to make as much news? If no, I wonder why not?
@Noflaps
Does it matter who started it?
Look, it could be subtle propaganda from Dems with no backup for it whatsoever. And it still wouldn't justify his response. Nothing makes it appropriate for a president to talk like a wronged 5 year old.
And to be clear, calling the National Guard into cities violated federal law by deploying troops to assist in civilian law enforcement activities. So yes, he has broken laws. Federal ones.
I'm not a Democrat, but I feel like defending Trump on everything and then deflecting (to jobs, which have been *lost, not gained*) is unnecessary.
@greenteakitten said in #4:
> I feel like defending Trump on everything and then deflecting (to jobs, which have been lost, not gained) is unnecessary.
That may not be necessary, but it's the only thing our friend here knows how to do. There even is a word for it: it's called a noflapism.
Let's not harrass fellow humans on this site, especially when I have seen political spammers on this site getting tons of upvotes for essentially just incomprensible rants while he alone is singled out despite being far more respectful.
I don't always agree with @Noflaps but I think people deserve respect. Especially when, unlike others in the past, he does not force his political views condescendingly or harrass others for having a different perspective.
@Noflaps said in #3:
> Which SPECIFIC laws, if any, did the law makers state were in danger of being broken?
Specifics are not relevant to their exhortation. It is up to all service members to remember their oaths to the Constitution and decide *for themselves* if any specific orders are unlawful.
@greenteakitten said in #6:
> Let's not harrass fellow humans on this site, especially when I have seen political spammers on this site getting tons of upvotes for essentially just incomprensible rants while he alone is singled out despite being far more respectful.
I didn't harass him. My post #5 is an accurate and objective depiction of Noflaps' activity on this forum. He's by and large the biggest political spammer (aka propagandist) on here, and he has the notable feature of exclusively using fallacies instead of arguments. Just check more of his posts if you're not aware of that fact.
> I don't always agree with @Noflaps but I think people deserve respect.
But I respect him. I even called him friend.
> Especially when, unlike others in the past, he does not force his political views condescendingly
Not condescendingly? How many exactly of his posts have you read?
> or harrass others for having a different perspective.
Well sure if calling someone 'friend' is harassment
It amazes me that so many people focus their gaze upon one or two political figures, while likely doing next to zero research as to why the world is the way it is!, these famous people are merely pieces in a living game, and most of us are merely the Pawns in the game (who incidentally do all the actual suffering) . So attacking one famous man constantly for everything he says and does simply further devides the Pawns, rendering them weaker and weaker, and when this world is finally the Orwellian nightmare a lot of people are sleepwalking into, they may well finally wake up. It's all far more complicated than one famous man. :).
The United States democracy is on a dangerous slope.