The Generals
-
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up, and you should have your ass kicked up into your shoulders for attempting to use them in your stupid political games.
@Larry said in The Generals:
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up
Then who should be allowed to speak? Only those who agree with President Trump?
Should teh Democrats only allow those to speak who agree with them?
Again, neither party is good in this area.
To the statements by the military and ex- military. At some point, you have to give some weight to what they are saying, based on their service in the military, their service in the government, and their (those who did serve) service in President Trumps administration. If it was just one person, it can be dismissed. But when multiple respected people are saying it ...........
-
TG, you're making way too much sense to post here.
I was only joking
-
If 'multiple respected people saying something' is the north star for truth, I would have to admit to lots of stuff that I do not consider true. And that's even allowing for the baked in and unquestioned assumption that the multiple people are representative of a majority. Which is in fact questionable.
But all that said, I am sure mistakes were made in the handling of that crowd dispersal, and down with that sort of thing.
-
TG, you're making way too much sense to post here.
-
@Larry said in The Generals:
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up
Then who should be allowed to speak? Only those who agree with President Trump?
Should teh Democrats only allow those to speak who agree with them?
Again, neither party is good in this area.
To the statements by the military and ex- military. At some point, you have to give some weight to what they are saying, based on their service in the military, their service in the government, and their (those who did serve) service in President Trumps administration. If it was just one person, it can be dismissed. But when multiple respected people are saying it ...........
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Larry said in The Generals:
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up
Then who should be allowed to speak? Only those who agree with President Trump?
Should teh Democrats only allow those to speak who agree with them?
Again, neither party is good in this area.
To the statements by the military and ex- military. At some point, you have to give some weight to what they are saying, based on their service in the military, their service in the government, and their (those who did serve) service in President Trumps administration. If it was just one person, it can be dismissed. But when multiple respected people are saying it ...........
This is why I said Ax needs his ass kicked for using their statements as a political weapon. All of these men were already doing that. Of the 6 he listed, 3 of them weren't even complaining about Trump, they were expressing their disapproval of using the military to address the riots. That's a legitimate point, but they were being used by Ax, and whoever wrote that piece, to beef up their agenda driven hit piece. Three of them were responding to a fake news claim, not facts, motivated either by their own political bias, or by the fact that they were one of the yes men Obama put in.
-
@Larry said in The Generals:
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up
Then who should be allowed to speak? Only those who agree with President Trump?
Should teh Democrats only allow those to speak who agree with them?
Again, neither party is good in this area.
To the statements by the military and ex- military. At some point, you have to give some weight to what they are saying, based on their service in the military, their service in the government, and their (those who did serve) service in President Trumps administration. If it was just one person, it can be dismissed. But when multiple respected people are saying it ...........
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Larry said in The Generals:
Did anyone elect any of these men to be in charge? No? Then they should shut the hell up
Then who should be allowed to speak? Only those who agree with President Trump?
Should teh Democrats only allow those to speak who agree with them?
Again, neither party is good in this area.
To the statements by the military and ex- military. At some point, you have to give some weight to what they are saying, based on their service in the military, their service in the government, and their (those who did serve) service in President Trumps administration. If it was just one person, it can be dismissed. But when multiple respected people are saying it ...........
Actually...Because all of these guys are generals, they are subject to recall and the Code of Military Justice. It would be a public relations nightmare, but they could be recalled and prosecuted under the Code for defamation of the Commander in Chief. Punishment could include a reduction in rank, and as such, a significant cut in their pensions.
-
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word. -
I didn't delve deep in this story . . . What I see is a number of high-ranking officers publicly expressing dismay at the threat of an American head of state contemplating siccing military troops on American citizens.
As well they might.
Possibly this was their way of making clear that they would not obey such an order.
As well they might.
You think these men and many others in the military haven't burned up the wires over this? You think Trump hasn't gotten a faceful of shit over it?
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I didn't delve deep in this story . . . What I see is a number of high-ranking officers publicly expressing dismay at the threat of an American head of state contemplating siccing military troops on American citizens.
As well they might.
Possibly this was their way of making clear that they would not obey such an order.
As well they might.
You think these men and many others in the military haven't burned up the wires over this? You think Trump hasn't gotten a faceful of shit over it?
@Catseye3 said in The Generals:
I didn't delve deep in this story . . . What I see is a number of high-ranking officers publicly expressing dismay at the threat of an American head of state contemplating siccing military troops on American citizens.
As well they might.
Possibly this was their way of making clear that they would not obey such an order.
As well they might.
You think these men and many others in the military haven't burned up the wires over this? You think Trump hasn't gotten a faceful of shit over it?
You think he actually cares?
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
-
@Catseye3 said in The Generals:
I didn't delve deep in this story . . . What I see is a number of high-ranking officers publicly expressing dismay at the threat of an American head of state contemplating siccing military troops on American citizens.
As well they might.
Possibly this was their way of making clear that they would not obey such an order.
As well they might.
You think these men and many others in the military haven't burned up the wires over this? You think Trump hasn't gotten a faceful of shit over it?
You think he actually cares?
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
@Jolly said in The Generals:
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
Different times, different conditions.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Jolly said in The Generals:
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
Different times, different conditions.
@Catseye3 said in The Generals:
@Jolly said in The Generals:
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
Different times, different conditions.
Same laws.
-
@Jolly said in The Generals:
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
Different times, different conditions.
@Catseye3 said in The Generals:
@Jolly said in The Generals:
LBJ used both the 82nd and 101st in 1967 and 1968. Bush 41 also used active duty military. There were no legal problems.
Different times, different conditions.
Bull shit.
It has been well documented that Obama got rid of all the genuine military leaders and replaced them with yes men. Now these yes men are complaining because Trump has suggested doing what past presidents actually did back when we had real leaders in the military instead of these candy assed Obama yes men.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
@Jolly said in The Generals:
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
That is interesting. It would be an Interesting case if a former general runs for president.
The code says:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”But, what is contemptuous words exactly?
-
@Jolly said in The Generals:
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
That is interesting. It would be an Interesting case if a former general runs for president.
The code says:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”But, what is contemptuous words exactly?
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly said in The Generals:
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
That is interesting. It would be an Interesting case if a former general runs for president.
The code says:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”But, what is contemptuous words exactly?
Anything disparaging, especially any type of public utterence.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly said in The Generals:
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
@Jolly Interesting information. Thanks!!
Here is an article I found that discusses it.
Article 88 in Uniform Code of Military Justice
from my understanding, a person has to be currently part of the military for it to apply.
From the article:
The main reason for this regulation is to keep military members who have access to major weapons of war to ever get involved in politics. Once they are retired or resigned their commission and a civilian citizen, they may partake in such political arguments in both written or spoken word.Generals are subject to recall at any time.
That is interesting. It would be an Interesting case if a former general runs for president.
The code says:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”But, what is contemptuous words exactly?
Anything disparaging, especially any type of public utterence.
@Jolly said in The Generals:
@taiwan_girl said in The Generals:
The code says:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”But, what is contemptuous words exactly?
Anything disparaging, especially any type of public utterence.
Interestingly, if you look at the article, all of the 'contemptuous words' come from retired personnel, and not subject to court-martial. None of the active members of the military said anything contemptuous.
