re: Trump: “The traitors that told the military to disobey my orders should be in jail”

quote:

---

That gets back to massaging

---

No it gets back to the scope of the actual words used. Nothing more.

quote:

---

the scope of the actual words used

---

Again the scope is broader then your interpretation.

quote:

---

Again the scope is broader then your interpretation.

---

If you ignore the actual words, sure.

Then you're just left reality and can paint whatever you want on that canvas hidden behind "interpretation".

quote:

---

that trust is at risk.”

This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.

---

And Biden didn't?

I seem to remember him threatening all Trump supporters (i.e. the political opposition) with US airpower... multiple times.

quote:

---

Laugh away. No one else GAF. The media has already moved on,

---

Has Trump?

The media/DEMs will keep laughing at Trump as long as he keeps his nuclear-level melt going

quote:

---

No. They baited MAGA into responding like emotional retards. That was the point.

---

quote:

---

Yes. This is is the fake point. Had nothing to do with real, illegal orders.

---

since A) the point was not to address illegal orders and B) they can not point to an illegal order, refused or not then it is clear their goal was to sow discord, drop morale, and possibly hinder recruitment in the US Armed Forces.

The same thing our enemies do on social media and by funding (legally) opposition groups and cause-heads.

These tactics are the same we've used all over the world against countries/regimes we wanted to influence instead of persuade.

quote:

---

Another week, another case of Trump and dems tweeting vile shite at eachother. None of this is moving the needle.

---

Its a rich mans booger flicking contest. American voters have horrible preferences.

Dance, monkey.

quote:

---

If you ignore the actual words, sure.

Then you're just left reality and can paint whatever you want on that canvas hidden behind "interpretation".

---

You mean like the 2nd Amendment, the words of which only guarantee the right to bear arms to those people who are part of a well
regulated militia, but which investigation into the context and other writings of the authors reveals a very different meaning?

Seems to me that your entire profession—and for that matter, the entire judicial branch—exists pretty much solely because laws (and the actions and words that the relevant law applies to) require interpretation.

That's not the case?

If not, what the hell does anybody need you for?

quote:

---

you have read that backwards.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

In other words to provide for a well regulated militia, the people have a right to bear arms.

It does not say only the militia, and the people that belong to it, has that right.

---

You mean I misinterpreted the words?

You mean the words don't just stand on their own? You actually have to correctly interpret them?