6 Dem congressmen/woman call for INSURRECTION against the trump administration

[BackAgain]

And again, I never claimed he said threat but deserved,

And as I’ve already noted, President Trump was factually wrong about that.

Big deal. It still isn’t a threat or anything along those lines

the exact language he used.

So yes you are gaslighting.

Repeating your lie doesn’t support it.

You're just not getting away with it.

Not even trying to: you’re the one making a mountain out a molehill. And I am more than happy to call you out on your bullshit.

You bloviate a lot. To no particular end or purpose.

 

[Concerned American]

That’s not what happened here. These lawmakers’ actions and words undermine good order and discipline in the armed forces by encouraging U.S. military personnel to question the orders of the commander in chief of the armed forces for no good reason, based on nothing more than mere political disagreement.

Worse, it isn't just the C in C, it is every superior officer that they are questioning. It is a seditious attack on the military establishment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Worse, it isn't just the C in C, it is every superior officer that they are questioning. It is a seditious attack on the military establishment.

And if they tell you they aren't aware of this, they;re lying.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If my options are ignoring Constitutional rights or ignoring those here illegally, I'll choose ignoring those here illegally.

Those are not the options. DHS is not "ignoring Constitutional rights."

Mistakes happen. If no law enforcement is allowed unless we can guaranteed zero mistakes that we are going to have zero law enforcement and thus chaos.

I see you will never address the Democrats' Interference with law enforcement, that leads to more mistakes than would happen if they cooperated.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Following an order you think is illegal makes YOU a criminal

How many have been court marshalled for following an order that they thought was illegal?

 

[Meister]

It is a bit. . . desperate.

They are members of congress, they should sponsor legislation that outlines their concerns, rather than these silly theatrics.

I don't however see the language they used as being "insurrectionist," rhetoric, anymore than Trump's speech at the capitol on Jan. 6th was.

It was strong political rhetoric only. . . . it was clearly intended for the constituents of their districts.



This is just politics.

With the political climate we have, and with the nuts coming out of the woodwork,
I feel it was, whether intended or not, a calling for the nuts to stand up.
There were no specifics as to any unlawful orders from the president. It was
just inferring that there was. This group of politicians got their point across,
with swamp type of rhetoric.

 

[Marener]

With the political climate we have, and with the nuts coming out of the woodwork,
I feel it was, whether intended or not, a calling for the nuts to stand up.
There were no specifics as to any unlawful orders from the president. It was
just inferring that there was. This group of politicians got their point across,
with swamp type of rhetoric.

Was Trump's statement that members of Congress should be hanged a calling for the nuts to stand up?

 

[Meister]

Was Trump's statement that members of Congress should be hanged a calling for the nuts to stand up?

He didn't say that.
Quote is exact words, okay?

 

[M14 Shooter]

the implied illegal orders are National Guard to cities to stop riots and not obeying orders to destroy the Narco terrorists. There is no other reason to use the language they used and that is an attempt to subvert the military plain and simple.

Obvious truth.

 

[BackAgain]

Obvious truth.

Yep.

The idiot Dims who tries to lecture the military disagree with a particular set of policies being pursued by the President. And on the basis that they happen to disagree, they suggest that those policies and directives are “unlawful.”

Boil it down; and they are indeed asking our service members to individually decide which such “orders” are “unlawful.” It clearly seeks to disrupt the chain of command. It is inherently seditious.

One of the many (and fairly obvious) problems with their incitation is reflected in these facts:

EVEN some of our lower federal courts are staking legal judgments about the validity and Constitutionality of (for example) using the national guard to assist local law enforcement on their own jaundiced views. Yet many of their “orders” are getting set aside by higher courts. If trained legal analysts like judges cannot agree, then how can service members who aren’t even specialized in legal analysis?

 

[Marener]

He didn't say that.
Quote is exact words, okay?

You’re right. I’m sorry. He said that their sedition is punishable by death.

Still equally bad.

Is that not a call to the nuts to stand up?

 

[Nostra]

You’re right. I’m sorry. He said that their sedition is punishable by death.

Still equally bad.

Is that not a call to the nuts to stand up?

We were told by your Murder Cult that sedition was worse than insurrection.

Now it's not such a big deal, huh?

 

[Nostra]

So many illegal orders to refuse to follow................and yet, not a single order found illegal.

This is like the millions of dead from USAID without a single body.

 

[Lesh]

No, following an order THE LAW says is illegal makes you a criminal. Refusing to follow an order you THINK is illegal makes you a criminal guilty of mutiny. Refusing ANY order is fraught with danger for any service member regardless of rank. Even if you consult a JAG lawyer, all you have is his OPINION of legality or illegality. Only a courts martial can make the final determination and if you guess wrong, the best you can hope for is a vacation at beautiful Fort Leavenworth followed by a Bad Conduct Discharge and a record of a felony conviction.

So every order must be followed.

Even if you think it’s illegal

If a superior tells you to gun down unarmed American citizens… you have to follow it

Interesting

Kinda throws Nuremberg out the window

 

[Nostra]

So every order must be followed.

Even if you think it’s illegal

If a superior tells you to gun down unarmed American citizens… you have to follow it

Interesting

Kinda throws Nuremberg out the window

Give examples of orders Trump gave that have been found to be illegal.

GO!

 

[Hafar1014]

Prove that a HYPOTHETICAL order was given?

Shut up stupid

Adults are talking

One must prove what the order was and they cant
Then give an example which they havent done
We can conclude no illegal order was given.

Democrats are advocating legal orders be defied. Legal orders to deport illegals. Funny when you think abut it

 

[Robert W]

Prove "legally" that the election you are referring to was illegally stolen or even stolen to begin with!!!!

Democrats love issuing orders.

 

[Marener]

We were told by your Murder Cult that sedition was worse than insurrection.

Now it's not such a big deal, huh?

Who said sedition is not such a big deal?

 

[Robert W]

You forgot to list any unlawful orders given. Name us one.

Democrats set traps to catch themselves then and still create those traps.

 

[Luckyone]

Today's Democrat party is experimenting in how often and how hard they can slap the middle-class worker. Is there anything non evil about that?

Then, legally prove your words/statement