T rump consoles the nation by letting us know that "MAGA's Love the Blacks"

Politics and Social Issues
21
Haha, you’re sounding like a 2nd amendment advocate who plans on fighting the US government.
I'm not planning on fighting anyone who is not coming to kill me. If I were it would not be something to Haha about. And the USA going the way of Syria is not something to Haha about. Unless you are a death promoting Anarchist.
But don’t worry, there’s not going to be a civil war.
Yeah, probably not. But it is more possible now than it has been in my lifetime, I think. Bread and circuses are a little more rare than usual these days.

We probably have 50 million people unemployed and death is becoming an everyday part of our American experience. Life is becoming less precious than it has been for Americans in recent history.

(106,180 dead from C-19 and counting.) The protestors are risking themselves and their loved ones to the potential spread of C-19. If they will risk life to that degree, they could go further, I think.

And I think you do and have, consistently, underestimated the destructive capacity of the T rump.

22

@timb

The protestors are risking themselves and their loved ones to the potential spread of C-19.
How come you are not condemning the protestors for risking your life and that of other Americans? Their mindless, selfish protest in direct violation of Presidential guidelines to slow the spread of the virus calls for the mobilization of the US Military to neutralize the threat to national security. Bayonets won't be necessary. Our battle-hardened soldiers would love to get their hands on the white punks fomenting the unrest and looting in our homeland.

 

23
How come you are not condemning the protestors for risking your life and that of other Americans? Their mindless, selfish protest in direct violation of Presidential guidelines to slow the spread of the virus calls for the mobilization of the US Military to neutralize the threat to national security. Bayonets won’t be necessary. Our battle-hardened soldiers would love to get their hands on the white punks fomenting the unrest and looting in our homeland.
Sree, you ignorant Jane Curtain. Sometimes there are risks worth taking. The protestors are seeking justice for all. That is an American ideal you may not be familiar with, since you call it "mindless and selfish".

And the DOTUS himself does not follow the federal guidelines for dealing with C-19. Of course, he has arranged to be above the law, anyway, so he is not guided by rules.

Our “battle hardened soldiers” will learn a whole new kind of PTSD if they start killing their own countrymen.

 

 

(Sorry, 3point, it is just so easy to mock Sree’s ignorant statements. I just can’t resist.)

24
But don’t worry, there’s not going to be a civil war.
Our Intelligence sources think there is reason for worry. (And by "intelligence sources" I don't mean just me.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/intelligence-analysts-unnerved-by-latest-trends-in-us/ar-BB14YMaC?ocid=spartanntp

"…analysts are now feeling a sense of dread, not because of events unfolding abroad, but because of developments in their own country.

The scenes have been disturbingly familiar to CIA analysts accustomed to monitoring scenes of societal unraveling abroad – the massing of protesters, the ensuing crackdowns and the awkwardly staged displays of strength by a leader determined to project authority."

"…Helt, a former CIA analyst responsible for tracking developments in China and Southeast Asia, told the Post, “I’ve seen this kind of violence… This is what autocrats do. This is what happens in countries before a collapse. It really does unnerve me.”

Reflecting on Trump’s church photo-op on Monday, Marc Polymeropoulos, who formerly ran CIA operations in Europe and Asia, added, “It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world.”

 

 

 

25
Our “battle hardened soldiers” will learn a whole new kind of PTSD if they start killing their own countrymen.
I didn't say anything about killing. Those busybody white punks have nothing to protest about except their debts in student loans which they view as injustice. They need their asses kicked by military boots and driven out of the crowd along with the arsonists and looters.
26

The military’s prime function is to kill our enemies.

Do you not recall that immediately after “Shock and Awe” our soldiers stood around just watching Iraqi looters who were ransacking and stealing the ancient treasures of that society in their major museum? It was not considered to be their job to control the looting in a country we had just forcibly taken over.

But now you think it is quite appropriate for our military to try to kick the asses of American looters and pillagers AND to simultaneously avoid killing them??? Maybe, maybe, military police, who have been trained to be police could be expected to do it, although using the military in any capacity to control the civilian population is a slippery slope toward a third world autocracy. But it is not, at all, a function for the likes of the proud, historically prestigious 82nd Airborne who are trained to oppose our enemies, NOT our citizens.

 

27

It’s not complicated. When you join the military you take an oath to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

And the government decides who the enemy is – not the public.

 

28
Our battle-hardened soldiers would love to get their hands on the white punks fomenting the unrest and looting in our homeland.
Battle hardened? Not most of the guys serving right now, Sree.
29
Oneguy: It’s not complicated. When you join the military you take an oath to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

And the government decides who the enemy is — not the public.


Wow. You really had a screwed up view of your Oath. I guess they should test new recruits on what their Oath actually is.

I,_______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Sorry no one explained to you that your Oath was to the Constitution. You swore to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Therefore, I would think that you would need to be quite familiar with the Constitution, because it might well be that someone in our Government, itself, is an enemy of the Constitution.

Someone, for instance, who would send in riot geared police to rough up and disperse a lawful peaceable assembly (isn’t that protected in the 1st amendment?) in order to feel safe taking a stroll to get his picture taken.

Now I see that the Oath gets tricky in this circumstance, because you also swore “to obey the orders of the President of the United States” (but to do that) “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

While the Uniform Code of Military Justice demands obedience to the lawful orders of a superior commissioned officer, it equally demands disobedience when the order given is illegal. Service members of the United States Armed Forces are required to disobey orders that violate the law.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, in case you haven't heard.

I see better, now, how with your misunderstanding, that you can so readily support the tin pot, 3rd world, militaristic autocracy that the T rump wants for himself, soooo much.

30
Sorry no one explained to you that your Oath was to the Constitution. You swore to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. -- Timb
It makes you wonder if oneguy is who he says he is. Unfortunately I don't expect anything other than talking points from him, with no facts behind them.
31
It makes you wonder if oneguy is who he says he is. by lausten
It really does make me wonder. This assertion of his is either the most ignorant one yet, OR he is being deliberately deceptive, trying to pass on a very dangerous untruth. Just to rehash, he emitted this dangerously deceptive assertion:
It’s not complicated. When you join the military you take an oath to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. And the government decides who the enemy is — not the public. by Oneguy
Lying about an Oath seems redundantly insidious. If someone is ever going to be honest, an "Oath" is supposed to insure that, but not so, it seems with RepugLIARS and their allies. Truth itself is their enemy. Were Oneguy's massive misinterpretation of his Oath OR deception about the Oath to be accepted by all of our military, then that would mean that the T rump could declare something like "Fake News Outlets are the Enemy of the State." And having been designated as such by the T rump and his government (handpicked cronies), could call up the military to treat those "Fake News" outlets as the enemy.

But no President would ever declare that News outlets were “Fake” or that they were “Enemies of the State” would they? Not just because they criticized his actions? Would the T rump do that? How about making up a conspiracy about Antifascists so that he could sic the military on them? And would the T rump call up the military in order to DOMINATE peaceful, lawful protestors? I think he would, and will, unless the military abide by their Oath to the CONSTITUTION.

BTW, don’t all elected federal officials take a similar Oath?

I,_______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;...
Seems to me that the RepugLIARS in Congress are breaching their Oaths as well. But solemn truth means little to them. They breach their Oaths even today by acquiescing to the T rump's use of federal riot geared police (possibly including military police) to suddenly AND FORCIBLY rough up and bum-rush a group of lawful peaceful protestors out of an area, injuring some of them, so that the T rump could have an impulsive, staged, photo opportunity.

This is what the T rump would have our military used against the people of the United States for > anything at all that might help him retain power > like appearing as a Bible toting, strong, successfully DOMINATING, leader for his never ending campaign to extend his rule into the Dictatorship that he longs for. (while he pretends to be the bringer of Law and Order, when he personally manages to have NO Laws apply to himself, and while he has brought not order, but chaos.)

960×540 57.5 KB

This is worth breaking one’s solemn Oath? Well, that’s RepugLIARS, and their allies, for you.

32
Sorry no one explained to you that your Oath was to the Constitution. You swore to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
That's just a semantic argument. The constitution in only valid in this country so you can't separate one from the other.
33
That’s just a semantic argument. The constitution in only valid in this country so you can’t separate one from the other.
No, Oneguy. It is not "just a semantic argument". The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is our Constitution uniquely, but that does not mean that you can just cavalierly substitute the word "country" for it. By doing that, you can break your true Oath, so easily.

Your idea of your Oath, as a soldier, is that, “Oh I must kill whoever my govt tells me to kill because that means I am protecting my Country.” That is a mis-interpretation of the Oath, that you supposedly took. It is a misinterpretation that could directly lead to any POTUS using the military to become an instant full fledged Dictator. She could just tell the 82nd Airborne to kill all of her domestic political enemies, with that bogus, insidious LIE of an interpretation of the Oath.

Now why would anyone come up with an Oath that could so easily lead to that? They wouldn’t. They didn’t. You took an Oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis for our country’s form of government. If it is shredded by potential Oath breakers, like you, we would still be a country, just a more pathetic one.

No Oneguy. You have lost most of the esteem you may have held, in my perspective, with that ignorant, insidious, dangerous interpretation of a solemn Oath.

34

Damned if any active duty soldiers or veterans think that their Oath is what you said it was, Oneguy.

How does one define “country”? Answer: There are a myriad of potential definitions of what is meant by that term.

(Am I just being picky, here? No. It is an Oath. One should be precise, when it comes to Oaths.)

And how does one define “The Constitution”? Answer: It is a document. There is no question that it is anything other than what it is.

And within the document are found the rules for Protection of the People of the United States. But there is no rule in there, that says to the military soldiers, “If a governmental official tells you that certain citizens of the United States are “enemies”, then that’s what they are. Be prepared to kill them.”

 

35

A number of ex generals have recently been clear in their understanding of their Oath being to THE CONSTITUTION.
And they broke with tradition of not speaking critically of a sitting “President”. I think that they recognized the following:

The T rump acted in breach of the Constitution when he had his motley crew of various federal police units (unidentified, btw) rough up a peaceful assembly of law abiding protestors, and injure some, just to clear them away, because the T rump would, otherwise, be es-scared of them on his stroll to get his picture taken…

…as an upside-down-Bible wielding, above-the-Law, Law and Order Conqueror and Dominator, Commander of Men who have the Most Super-Duper Weapons, like you have never seen before, etc., etc.

Anyway, thank goodness that the Defense Secretary figured it out and sent the 82nd back home from their DC deployment.

Until the Def. Sec. met with the DOTUS. Then he called the 82nd back, again.

But then with further review, he sent them back home, yet, AGAIN.

So for the moment, at least, the T rump does not get to sic our military on those citizens who he considers to be enemies.

But the T rump doesn’t usually, really, give up. He tends to find another way to get what he wants.

If the T rump ever does use a US soldier to kill US citizens who he designates to be enemies of the State, then, IMO, that would be a crime that would warrant the death penalty. (Not for the Soldier. He could just get Life.) But the T rump would have committed a betrayal that would merit an erasure from the Universe as a living organism.

36

Complete nonsense.

Defending the country is simply understood as part of the oath. That’s what the military has always done. It’s not complicated.

By you’re logic all of the wars the US military has fought have been illegal because the military was defending the country instead of the constitution.

 

37

Guy, thanks for demonstrating the slippery slope to dictatorships. It’s a shame introspection has no place in your world, you could use some to understand what Tim is trying to explain.

@timb at #329427

Wow. You really had a screwed up view of your Oath. I guess they should test new recruits on what their Oath actually is.

I,_______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Sorry no one explained to you that your Oath was to the Constitution. You swore to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Therefore, I would think that you would need to be quite familiar with the Constitution, because it might well be that someone in our Government, itself, is an enemy of the Constitution.

Someone, for instance, who would send in riot geared police to rough up and disperse a lawful peaceable assembly (isn’t that protected in the 1st amendment?) in order to feel safe taking a stroll to get his picture taken.

Now I see that the Oath gets tricky in this circumstance, because you also swore “to obey the orders of the President of the United States” (but to do that) “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

While the Uniform Code of Military Justice demands obedience to the lawful orders of a superior commissioned officer, it equally demands disobedience when the order given is illegal. Service members of the United States Armed Forces are required to disobey orders that violate the law.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, in case you haven’t heard.

________________________________________________________________-

38
Oneguy says :

Complete nonsense.

Defending the country is simply understood as part of the oath. That’s what the military has always done. It’s not complicated.


Defending the Constitution was your Oath. If you think that is nonsense, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. You defend the “people of our country” to the extent that you defend the Constitution. If you take an Oath, you don’t get to change up the words so it says something abominable that you happen to want it to say. Like: “It means to defend my country from all enemies, and the “government” tells me who the domestic enemies are.”

By you’re logic all of the wars the US military has fought have been illegal because the military was defending the country instead of the constitution.
Not all the wars. I understand that the soldiers who fought in Korea, and many who fought in Viet Nam, and subsequent conflicts, did not have the wherewithal to understand whether they were fighting legitimately. So they did what soldiers do. Obey orders.

But an obviously illegal order is supposed to be DISOBEYED by a soldier. The T rump ordering military Oath bound troops to physically attack a group of law abiding peaceful protestors for the benefit of his personal political campaign, is CLEARLY unconstitutional by the most simple understanding of the document that you swore to uphold.

Yo can’t just change the meaning of your Oath to a general Oath to protect whatever is meant in your head by “country” and then add to that, that the Oath compels you to hold anyone, (that some freak in the govt tells you the enemy is) is your target.

That is an insidious abomination of an interpretation that would have our military backing the totalitarian takeover of our nation.

Is that what you want? Cause you seem to be going around the barn and across the field to get to the barn door that was where you started, all along.

Your Oath was to the Constitution.

39

It is sad that you are even trying to defend that gross and dangerous misinterpretation or flat out LIE, whichever it is.

40

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/top-military-official-apologizes-for-taking-part-in-trump-walk/ar-BB15lGjV?ocid=spartanntp&fullscreen=true#image=2

So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after thinking about it, came down on the side of my interpretation of the Oath to the Constitution. He admitted that he made a mistake presenting himself as another prop (alongside the Bible) in the T rump’s campaign photo op.

992×519 82 KB

Maybe this will hold the T rump back for a while from manipulating the military into going after his domestic political foes.

Oneguy, I know that you are a veteran. And now I know that you hold a dangerous and oh so ignorant interpretation of the Oath you took to the Constitution. How do you reconcile your interpretation of the Oath with the interpretation of the Oath by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Did you spend part of your enlistment as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? I wonder, because you seem so confident in your pathetic and dangerous misinterpretation.