- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Trump Calls for Executing Democrats Over Message to Military

#81

@notsoneutral
you're complaining about the edit function being used??

i mean,
you're complaining about the edit function being used.

i mean, you're s e r i o u s l y compl..[a.s.o.]

Hahahaha hahahaaaa

i mean, ... huh, what?!

so, you yourself copy unnecessarily like mad intendedly(?) sabotaging the readability of the thread, adding a whole page for nothing, ... nothing at all.
spam, that is.

i mean, . . .

[edit,17 min:]
Hey! There must be some really really serious misconception be underlying there.
[\]

@notsoneutral you're complaining about the edit function being used?? i mean, you're complaining about the edit function being used. i mean, you're s e r i o u s l y compl..[a.s.o.] Hahahaha hahahaaaa i mean, ... huh, what?! so, you yourself copy unnecessarily like mad intendedly(?) sabotaging the readability of the thread, adding a whole page for nothing, ... nothing at all. spam, that is. i mean, . . . [*edit,17 min*:] Hey! There must be some really really serious misconception be underlying there. [\]
#82

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said in #81:

@notsoneutral
you're complaining about the edit function being used??

i mean,
you're complaining about the edit function being used.

i mean, you're s e r i o u s l y compl..[a.s.o.]

Hahahaha hahahaaaa

i mean, ... huh, what?!

so, you yourself copy unnecessarily like mad intendedly(?) sabotaging the readability of the thread, adding a whole page for nothing, ... nothing at all.
spam, that is.

i mean, . . .

[edit,17 min:]
Hey! There must be some really really serious misconception be underlying there.
[\]

Well you understand, @bfchessguy would never ever edit a single post.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said in #81: > @notsoneutral > you're complaining about the edit function being used?? > > i mean, > you're complaining about the edit function being used. > > i mean, you're s e r i o u s l y compl..[a.s.o.] > > Hahahaha hahahaaaa > > i mean, ... huh, what?! > > so, you yourself copy unnecessarily like mad intendedly(?) sabotaging the readability of the thread, adding a whole page for nothing, ... nothing at all. > spam, that is. > > i mean, . . . > > [*edit,17 min*:] > Hey! There must be some really really serious misconception be underlying there. > [\] Well you understand, @bfchessguy [would](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-trump-picking-the-best-and-the-brightest-for-his-cabinet?page=3#29) [never](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/1984#7) [ever]( https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/moderator-of-these-forums-favors-christianity-and-shuns-other-religions?page=3#28) [edit](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/why-is-usa-say-freedom-when-thay-fight-in-ukraine-when-they-are-not-involved-in-it?page=4#38) [a](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-trump-picking-the-best-and-the-brightest-for-his-cabinet?page=4#35) [single](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/is-trump-picking-the-best-and-the-brightest-for-his-cabinet?page=4#34) [post](https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/news-alert-god-says-i-created-humor-to-fight-against-false-gods-heres-black-swans-story#6).
#84

@Noflaps said in #67:

Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to "appeal" rulings?

Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges/

Noflaps, why do you ask rhetorical questions like this instead of directly addressing the points made?
I mentioned that Trump elevated Emil Bove, who had encouraged the DOJ to defy the courts.
The administration has been happy to appeal many adverse rulings up to the Supreme Court.
If the SCOTUS agrees with them, then that is a political victory for them.

However, when the courts don't agree, the judges are often excoriated (instead of just politely saying 'I respectfully disagree.'). Threats go up against Judges who Trump has harshly criticized. Either he is clueless to the effects of his words or he is intentionally trying to 'discourage' judges from ruling against him. Which is it?

US judges alarmed over rise in violent threats as Trump and Musk lambast them:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/us-judges-threats-trump-musk/

Spike in threats to judges prompts calls for more security:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/30/judges-courthouses-threats-security-trump/

@Noflaps said in #67: > Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to "appeal" rulings? Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges/ Noflaps, why do you ask rhetorical questions like this instead of directly addressing the points made? I mentioned that Trump elevated Emil Bove, who had encouraged the DOJ to defy the courts. The administration has been happy to appeal many adverse rulings up to the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS agrees with them, then that is a political victory for them. However, when the courts don't agree, the judges are often excoriated (instead of just politely saying 'I respectfully disagree.'). Threats go up against Judges who Trump has harshly criticized. Either he is clueless to the effects of his words or he is intentionally trying to 'discourage' judges from ruling against him. Which is it? US judges alarmed over rise in violent threats as Trump and Musk lambast them: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/us-judges-threats-trump-musk/ Spike in threats to judges prompts calls for more security: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/30/judges-courthouses-threats-security-trump/
#85

@clousems said in #47:

@water22 To some extent, making a targeted political ad implying soldiers are receiving unlawful orders is propaganda (albeit not to such a degree that anyone should be rolling out the guillotines or anything).

Sorry for the super late reply, but just to be clear, I don't think there is such an implication. The Democratic veterans in congress, in the video, are just pointing out that the military is in a "stressful" period (which they are, intervening in American cities against their own citizens, bombing Venezuelan vessels) and that they have a responsibility to refuse illegal orders.

But even if they were, and they pointed, say, to the fact that Trump is wrongly targeting Venezuelan boats for destruction, I don't really see how that's propaganda either. I think that is still a legitimate statement. Whether it came from a Republican or Democrat the US military has to abide by US and international law, and many legal experts have pointed out that the strikes in Venezuelan waters violate those laws. They also cite in the article how the "Nuremberg defense" of "I'm just following orders" is not an excuse as was the case with Lt. William Calley in the May Thai massacre.

And on this I kind of agree with CoffeeBean, I mean propaganda, as I understand it, is a sort of brainwashing technique to convince people of something through selective facts or emotional appeals as opposed to a clear examination of the evidence. I think I would have to confirm I just don't see that here.

However, since you're only weakly endorsing that statement, I will give you a pass :).

It should be possible, and legitimate imo for members of the democratic party to make neutral ads that remind our soldiers of their duties to the country and their constitution.

@clousems said in #47: > @water22 To some extent, making a targeted political ad implying soldiers are receiving unlawful orders *is* propaganda (albeit not to such a degree that anyone should be rolling out the guillotines or anything). Sorry for the super late reply, but just to be clear, I don't think there is such an implication. The Democratic veterans in congress, in the video, are just pointing out that the military is in a "stressful" period (which they are, intervening in American cities against their own citizens, bombing Venezuelan vessels) and that they have a responsibility to refuse illegal orders. But even if they were, and they pointed, say, to the fact that Trump is wrongly targeting Venezuelan boats for destruction, I don't really see how that's propaganda either. I think that is still a legitimate statement. Whether it came from a Republican or Democrat the US military has to abide by US and international law, and many legal experts have pointed out that the strikes in Venezuelan waters violate those laws. They also cite in the article how the "Nuremberg defense" of "I'm just following orders" is not an excuse as was the case with Lt. William Calley in the May Thai massacre. And on this I kind of agree with CoffeeBean, I mean propaganda, as I understand it, is a sort of brainwashing technique to convince people of something through selective facts or emotional appeals as opposed to a clear examination of the evidence. I think I would have to confirm I just don't see that here. However, since you're only weakly endorsing that statement, I will give you a pass :). It should be possible, and legitimate imo for members of the democratic party to make neutral ads that remind our soldiers of their duties to the country and their constitution.
#87

@water22 said in #85:

And on this I kind of agree with CoffeeBean, I mean propaganda, as I understand it, is a sort of brainwashing technique to convince people of something through selective facts or emotional appeals as opposed to a clear examination of the evidence.

You agree with me?
How?
I did not express any position.
So far I only asked a few questions to clarify the semantics.

@water22 said in #85: > And on this I kind of agree with CoffeeBean, I mean propaganda, as I understand it, is a sort of brainwashing technique to convince people of something through selective facts or emotional appeals as opposed to a clear examination of the evidence. You agree with me? How? I did not express any position. So far I only asked a few questions to clarify the semantics.
#88

With regard to #84:

@Gitananda I ask rhetorical questions because rather than lecture I feel it is better for others to reflect for themselves, if they will attempt to do so.

Indeed, I will now ask the very same rhetorical question again -- since it has not yet been directly answered, so far as I can tell:

"Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to 'appeal' rulings?"

The answer is quite clear: "no." So, claiming that President Trump "disregards and defies" the very rulings he or his administration appeals seems to me clearly to be inaccurate and to follow a mistaken, although often repeated, narrative.

By definition, one does not "disregard" a ruling by choosing to turn, once again, to the judicial system in order to "appeal" it. Indeed, when an appeal is taken the ruling being appealed is paid much attention.

You seem to feel that Trump is not polite enough with regard to some judicial rulings and think that somehow this leads to "threats" against judges.

Trump has not called for violence to judges. Not once. I don't believe anyone can prove that wrong. Has he been happy with every ruling? Of course not. For example, I doubt he was happy with the mistaken ruling that would have removed him from the ballot -- a ruling that was overturned on appeal.

But let me remind you that Trump has (quite wrongly) been more than merely threatened following harsh rhetoric from many Democratic politicians and supposed pundits. He has actually been wounded! Should we blame harsh rhetoric by politicians for that, too?

Admittedly, Trump disagrees with some rulings and sometimes makes his dissatisfaction known. Which politician does not do the same thing sometimes, and often in no uncertain terms (to say the least)? Sure, that may seem like another rhetorical question -- but I am trusting you to be fair, to have a good memory, and to reflect. After all, your writing suggests to me that you are both earnest and intelligent.

Simply recall some of the things some Democrat politicians have said about the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled in some way that displeased them. And what followed? Some of the justices have had their neighborhoods disrupted and some of them have had to deal with unwarranted, nasty behavior, as well. Remember?

I'm sure somebody will now yell "whataboutism" at me -- as a practiced means for distracting from and ignoring what I write. That is the standard way for some to respond when I point out that too often some on the Left stridently accuse others of precisely the same conduct in which some on the Left themselves engage.

Trump is NOT threatening judges with violence -- let us not try to blame him for the actions of an irrational few.

And, in the same spirit of fairness, I do not blame all Democrats for the actions of an irrational, angry few.

I seldom bring up politics myself. I am content to let it lie. But I will often respond to talking points launched into the atmosphere, in order to remind that there is often more than one way of looking at things than some seem to be informed.

I feel that everybody -- whether on the Left, the Right or in the Center -- should take care not to be drawn angrily and with over-confidence into group think inspired by the drumbeat repetition of half-truths or outright mistakes appearing in social or formal media.

For example: over the preceding four years was the American border TRULY "secure" ? Did Covid REALLY come from some pangolin soup? Were we REALLY blessed with the best Biden "ever" ? I could provide several other rhetorical questions in the same vein; but those seem sufficient for now, to get the point across.

Angry certainty is often a mistake. I remind myself of that, too -- although I very rarely get angry since I realize most people act in good faith, and do their reasonable best, even when mistaken.

With regard to #84: @Gitananda I ask rhetorical questions because rather than lecture I feel it is better for others to reflect for themselves, if they will attempt to do so. Indeed, I will now ask the very same rhetorical question again -- since it has not yet been directly answered, so far as I can tell: "Do those who disregard and defy courts bother to 'appeal' rulings?" The answer is quite clear: "no." So, claiming that President Trump "disregards and defies" the very rulings he or his administration appeals seems to me clearly to be inaccurate and to follow a mistaken, although often repeated, narrative. By definition, one does not "disregard" a ruling by choosing to turn, once again, to the judicial system in order to "appeal" it. Indeed, when an appeal is taken the ruling being appealed is paid much attention. You seem to feel that Trump is not polite enough with regard to some judicial rulings and think that somehow this leads to "threats" against judges. Trump has not called for violence to judges. Not once. I don't believe anyone can prove that wrong. Has he been happy with every ruling? Of course not. For example, I doubt he was happy with the mistaken ruling that would have removed him from the ballot -- a ruling that was overturned on appeal. But let me remind you that Trump has (quite wrongly) been more than merely threatened following harsh rhetoric from many Democratic politicians and supposed pundits. He has actually been wounded! Should we blame harsh rhetoric by politicians for that, too? Admittedly, Trump disagrees with some rulings and sometimes makes his dissatisfaction known. Which politician does not do the same thing sometimes, and often in no uncertain terms (to say the least)? Sure, that may seem like another rhetorical question -- but I am trusting you to be fair, to have a good memory, and to reflect. After all, your writing suggests to me that you are both earnest and intelligent. Simply recall some of the things some Democrat politicians have said about the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled in some way that displeased them. And what followed? Some of the justices have had their neighborhoods disrupted and some of them have had to deal with unwarranted, nasty behavior, as well. Remember? I'm sure somebody will now yell "whataboutism" at me -- as a practiced means for distracting from and ignoring what I write. That is the standard way for some to respond when I point out that too often some on the Left stridently accuse others of precisely the same conduct in which some on the Left themselves engage. Trump is NOT threatening judges with violence -- let us not try to blame him for the actions of an irrational few. And, in the same spirit of fairness, I do not blame all Democrats for the actions of an irrational, angry few. I seldom bring up politics myself. I am content to let it lie. But I will often respond to talking points launched into the atmosphere, in order to remind that there is often more than one way of looking at things than some seem to be informed. I feel that everybody -- whether on the Left, the Right or in the Center -- should take care not to be drawn angrily and with over-confidence into group think inspired by the drumbeat repetition of half-truths or outright mistakes appearing in social or formal media. For example: over the preceding four years was the American border TRULY "secure" ? Did Covid REALLY come from some pangolin soup? Were we REALLY blessed with the best Biden "ever" ? I could provide several other rhetorical questions in the same vein; but those seem sufficient for now, to get the point across. Angry certainty is often a mistake. I remind myself of that, too -- although I very rarely get angry since I realize most people act in good faith, and do their reasonable best, even when mistaken.
#89

has any potus ever had even his own fellow party members against him to such a degree that even republicans currently throw their arms over their heads

that what we've no choice to be witnessing
is not statesmanship,
not sovereign

it's kitchen table gibberish & acting & changing mind like a kiddie
with a global power at hands
and people get harmed of it
( on venezuelan boats, fired from job serving the u.s., on dem9nstrations fought back with lol with national guard canubelieveit civil war flair , andandand )

has any potus ever had even his own fellow party members against him to such a degree that even republicans currently throw their arms over their heads that what we've no choice to be witnessing is not statesmanship, not sovereign it's kitchen table gibberish & acting & changing mind like a kiddie with a global power at hands and people get harmed of it ( on venezuelan boats, fired from job serving the u.s., on dem9nstrations fought back with lol with national guard canubelieveit civil war flair , andandand )
#90

and also what about the Comey case ...

what if P' ' 'n was involved in US elections to trumps favor

how severe must counteracting your own native free world democracy be as to be called a 'traitor'

such severe suspicions need lain open without restriction
freedom must defend itself against abuse and corruption

10,000 years of human civilizations and acquisition of experience & wisdom
mankind's achievements in social and political levels, the separation of the powers (legislation, adjudication, and execution), constitutions, magna charta, human rights, united nations, international law, geneve convention, ...

and now this

..and it all currently gets dragged into dirt, absurdity or forgottenness

woe to humanity - is there a tiniest chance for dystopies of totalitarianism taking over not necessarily to have to become true soon or late

[ and that includes not only states' rulers, but aswell the krakens of the digital world getting more and more hold of your life, and the superrich imposing their own rules on people ]

yes \ no ?

and also what about the Comey case ... what if P' ' 'n was involved in US elections to trumps favor how severe must counteracting your own native free world democracy be as to be called a 'traitor' such severe suspicions need lain open without restriction freedom must defend itself against abuse and corruption 10,000 years of human civilizations and acquisition of experience & wisdom mankind's achievements in social and political levels, the separation of the powers (legislation, adjudication, and execution), constitutions, magna charta, human rights, united nations, international law, geneve convention, ... and now this ..and it all currently gets dragged into dirt, absurdity or forgottenness woe to humanity - is there a tiniest chance for dystopies of totalitarianism taking over not necessarily to have to become true soon or late [ and that includes not only states' rulers, but aswell the krakens of the digital world getting more and more hold of your life, and the superrich imposing their own rules on people ] yes \ no ?