- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump didn’t actually name any names connected to seditious behavior
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Vox is amazing.
1
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:36 pm to antibarner
If he was shrewd, that's what he would have done.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:36 pm to Bunk Moreland
His absolute pivot on Epstein was world class
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:37 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
If he was shrewd, that's what he would have done.
Correct.
Instead he went into muh fight mode
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:38 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Is this the same thing you said when Trump was convicted* of 34 bogus charges in which proving a crime was prerequisite and yet no crime was proven?
Holy irrelevancy
And, just so you know, I said the judge's ruling on that issue would be fatal and cause a retrial, just FWIW.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:39 pm to antibarner
quote:
They'll be sitting next to whoever defies the President in Leavenworth.
The oath is to defend the CONSTITUTION, not the President.
It's not defying the President to refuse illegal orders, it's the Constitution. All of the service members who defied the illegal order to get a jab under President Autopen were following this principle. The same would hold true IF Trump issues any illegal orders.
We would be in a much better spot if more people had defied illegal orders to go to the illegal war called the Vietnam conflict.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Your troll schtick was pushed too far with this post, friend.
If this is not the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:41 pm to Timeoday
my face just melted.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:41 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
(1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
From US Code2387
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:42 pm to antibarner
How can complying with only lawful orders and the Constitution fall under
?
quote:
e insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty
?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
look like absolute idiots.
So if some lowly grunt defies an order and someone gets hurt or killed in the process, who exactly is the idiot?
These Democrat hypothetical scare tactics are for pure show. Explain that to the parents or spouse and children of a service member who will encounter an untimely knock at their front door.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Completely totally irrelevant unless you think a mother should have been prosecuted, and her kids remanded to child custody, for saying
The actual words used
"Johnny, if you get chocolate on the car's seat, I'm gonna kill you!" or
"When I catch you, I'm gonna tickle you to death." or
SFP to MsSFP, "When I retire, if I ever act like 'that guy,' just shoot me"
... not a literal invitation to mariticide.
The message being conveyed clearly supersedes words used to convey it.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:46 pm to Chip82
quote:
So if some lowly grunt defies an order and someone gets hurt or killed in the process, who exactly is the idiot?
That comes down to personal responsibility, at that point.
I don't let politicians guide my life, personally.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don't recall you saying that...but, nice pivot as usual.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The message being conveyed clearly supersedes words used to convey it.
But it doesn't. You just want it to. For partisan purposes.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
Oh no you don't. They broke the law counselor,.WHO determines what orders are lawful? We can't have individual members of the military deciding every time an order is issued.
Well this ones lawful and this one isnt...because the Democrats implied?
They broke the law.
Well this ones lawful and this one isnt...because the Democrats implied?
They broke the law.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:49 pm to Houag80
quote:
I don't recall you saying that.
Most people don't listen to my actual arguments and have terrible memories about what I actually said, so I'm not shocked.
LINK
quote:
The constitutional issues are actually (1) not having to be specific on which associated crimes the prosecution relied on, specifically in the indictment and (2) the non-unanimity the jury was allowed in choosing that associated crime.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:49 pm to antibarner
quote:
From US Code2387
Thanks for the citation, helpful.
I don't read any of that to compel obedience to an illegal order. Do you?
If a Seal were ordered by Biden to assassinate Trump to prevent him from "destroying our Democracy," and the Seal refused, could he be prosecuted under that section?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:52 pm to IvoryBillMatt
WHO determines what orders are lawful? Are we going to have a debate every time orders are issued? You cant run a military or anything else that way.
Some would be obvious like your example. But the drug boats off Venezuela? Not so obvious.
Some would be obvious like your example. But the drug boats off Venezuela? Not so obvious.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:57 pm to antibarner
quote:
WHO determines what orders are lawful? Are we going to have a debate every time orders are issued? You cant run a military or anything else that way.
Some would be obvious like your example. But the drug boats off Venezuela? Not so obvious.
I agree it's a tough issue in practice. I just don't see how it's seditious to say don't follow illegal orders...that's the law. It was chicken shite of the Dems to do, but not unlawful or seditious.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News