EPTThat is the crux of it.
Every other excuse is just people trying to cover for Trump saying something clearly wrong by every measure.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5368
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21973 Posts
That is the crux of it. Every other excuse is just people trying to cover for Trump saying something clearly wrong by every measure. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3261 Posts
On November 27 2025 04:47 micronesia wrote: They'll just muddy the waters. "Mr. Trump's objection is not that he wants service members to follow illegal orders--it's that the subtext of Kelly's language will result in service members not following legal orders simply because they don't agree with them!" Crap like that. I mean that’s fine, but does anybody buy that? If they’re prepared to affirm Kelly’s assertion that it is every service member’s duty to disobey illegal orders, their whole criminal case against him is based on “Well yeah, but he’s not allowed to say it”? Are we gonna lock up every drill instructor that’s been teaching them that as well? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26142 Posts
On November 27 2025 04:23 ChristianS wrote: Dan Carlin put out a podcast about the “don’t follow illegal orders” stuff. Don’t know if it’s necessary to introduce him – feels like everybody listens to the same fuckin podcasts – but Dan Carlin is best known as host of Hardcore History, a history podcast that tends to focus primarily (but not exclusively) on military history. He has a podcast feed called Common Sense where he occasionally puts up shows on US politics. Politically he’s a centrist, with some of the usual baggage associated with that term – he’s spent a decent amount of time hanging out with Dave Rubin, for instance – but FWIW I’ve always liked him. He feels sincere and compassionate where most centrists feel like they’re cynical temperature-takers. Anyway Dan Carlin is very concerned about this “illegal orders” business. He feels that amidst all the inconsequential bullshit, this is one of the things to stay focused on, because guns, soldiers, and military equipment are historically what determines who is in power. But also because “you have an obligation not to follow illegal orders” is a longstanding US military tradition, officially enshrined in doctrine in 1947 but with supporting precedent dating back to at least the War of 1812. We locked guys up for following illegal orders during Vietnam, while active fighting was still going on, despite the PR cost to the military and any damage it might do to military readiness in an active conflict which was still costing thousands of American lives each year. And it wasn’t a bunch of soft liberal civilians or professors or politicians making that decision, it was active duty military men in military courts locking those guys up for doing what they were told by a commanding officer. It’s hard for me to gauge this one. On the one hand this is absolutely one of the guardrails against atrocity that I would most hate to see corroded. On the other hand it seems like the fascists are picking a losing fight here? I mean military guys are usually pretty right-wing – I don’t doubt a lot of them voted for Trump – but the administration is so obviously in the wrong on military code here. Like, it’s on the plaque in front of West Point. And they want to choose this case as their next political prosecution, against an astronaut no less? It just seems like such a clear loser in every regard. But it’s certainly one of the clearest recent examples of MAGA being completely despicable and unprincipled (dare I say deplorable?) in recent memory. I can only hope Carlin was taking Rubin at face value. What Rubin says he believes and how he actually behaves, quite starkly different. But hey, Carlin’s got a track record spanning decades and I quite like the guy, even if I’ll disagree with his take on whatever issue it usually feels both sincere and consistent. Aye it’s a curious one. Look the MAGA diehards are basically going to be in favour of whatever, we’ve seen that illustrated enough times already. This doesn’t strike me as something that’s going to play well in basically any cohort outside of the zealots. Remains to be seen of course. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26142 Posts
On November 27 2025 04:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote: meh, i prefer centrists. a book-smart, street-smart centrist can put the fear of god into big business leaders while keeping markets open and free. Chretien was the best Canadian PM of the past 60 years... Clinton the best Prez the last 60 years. BOth are centrists. Both guys flopped all over the place and made good practical decisions without getting swept up in ideology. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ksd-gUW6Lx0 this guy is motherfucking, god damn, genius. no one fucked with this guy. Every MP was afraid of him. LOL.  This is why I was glad to see Mamdani and Trump quit the showboating and get down to practical matters of New YOrk City business. They were, quite crucially, actually centrists with a track record of governance in that rough domain. As opposed to ‘I’m a conservative but I won’t admit I am’ or ‘I’ll wait to see which way the wind blows on any issue’ centrist types who are all over the media space especially. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21973 Posts
On November 27 2025 04:52 ChristianS wrote: There is no criminal case. Because nothing he said is incorrect.I mean that’s fine, but does anybody buy that? If they’re prepared to affirm Kelly’s assertion that it is every service member’s duty to disobey illegal orders, their whole criminal case against him is based on “Well yeah, but he’s not allowed to say it”? Are we gonna lock up every drill instructor that’s been teaching them that as well? | ||
|
dyhb
United States28 Posts
So six Democrats release that video, and then Elissa Slotkin goes to the media and admits that she is not aware of any illegal orders that have been issued. Sure, and Republicans can release an ad telling Democrats that fucking farm animals is illegal, but currently have no information that any Dem has fucked a farm animal. But Trump calls it seditious and obviously deserves high backlash for doing so, and that's certainly a story also worth covering that's damaging to Republicans. Maybe it was to bait Trump into saying something insane (if so it worked), or to get Americans thinking that Trump is about to issue illegal orders, or to just create distrust and profit from pointing out the distrust ("we know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now" "this administration is pitting our uniformed military ... against American citizens"). I continue to trust the military to not obey blatantly illegal orders. It was a stupid ad in any case. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17059 Posts
On September 19 2025 21:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree. After all, if we're censoring comedians and talk show hosts for merely offending a president, I can't imagine how seriously we'd need to start censoring right-wing news organizations and political commentators (Fox, Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, etc.) for their dangerous falsehoods and lies. Crazy Candace believes what she is saying. Shapiro sometimes lies in a very surgical, calculated way. To Wit: @1:50 :"to all the people who want a presidential pardon.. Ben Shapiro is playing you for a fool" TL;DW version: Shapiro mixes up the Federal and State charges and ignores the eggshell plaintiff principle. Eggshell Principle: shove a 99 year old man down to the concrete sidewalk and he dies.. that is UNINTENTIONAL murder. That is Chauvin's state level conviction.... UNINTENTIONAL murder. At the Federal level Chauvin plead guilty on different charges with 1 related to a 14 year old. it is unfortunate this video got so few views. all his other stuff gets about 5X as many views. the narrator had a brain tumour removed recently. i hope he has a 100% recovery.. his content is very insightful. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1073 Posts
On November 27 2025 05:18 dyhb wrote: The six Democrats in that video seemed to be conducting a political stunt. Claiming that troops need to "stand up for our laws," like the troops are so ignorant to their duties that they need Democratic politicians reminding them of something that has always been the case. So for me the subtext has always been snobbery (we know better than you what to do with illegal orders) and insulting/concern trolling (we know our troops are patriotic and honor their oaths, but we're just so concerned that they might not). So six Democrats release that video, and then Elissa Slotkin goes to the media and admits that she is not aware of any illegal orders that have been issued. Sure, and Republicans can release an ad telling Democrats that fucking farm animals is illegal, but currently have no information that any Dem has fucked a farm animal. But Trump calls it seditious and obviously deserves high backlash for doing so, and that's certainly a story also worth covering that's damaging to Republicans. Maybe it was to bait Trump into saying something insane (if so it worked), or to get Americans thinking that Trump is about to issue illegal orders, or to just create distrust and profit from pointing out the distrust ("we know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now" "this administration is pitting our uniformed military ... against American citizens"). I continue to trust the military to not obey blatantly illegal orders. It was a stupid ad in any case. Context: American troops are amassing outside Venezuela without any declaration of war from Congress. More Context: US forces have been bombing boats they claim are drug boats. Not legal and officers have quit over it rather than commit crimes. Others have obviously followed through. More Context: National Guard troops are deployed in many cities around the country without any legal basis (every argument gets struck down by a judge). Trump has at times called for the shooting of looters. He’s very loose with his words and often calls for violence against anyone he doesn’t like. They didn’t put out that message in a vacuum. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17059 Posts
On November 27 2025 05:33 RenSC2 wrote: Context: American troops are amassing outside Venezuela without any declaration of war from Congress. isn't this why the Korean war was termed a "police action" and never called a "war"? to get out of going through proper legislative channels? | ||
KwarK
United States43290 Posts
On November 27 2025 05:18 dyhb wrote: any illegal orders that have been issued Don't they keep firing on civilian vessels in international waters? Or is there some legal framework that makes that okay that would apply if another country started firing on US flagged vessels? | ||
|
dyhb
United States28 Posts
On November 27 2025 05:33 RenSC2 wrote: The Venezuela example is why I put "get Americans thinking that Trump is about to issue illegal orders" in the possible reasons alongside baiting Trump and profit from distrust. In that instance, Democrats aren't reinforcing stuff the military already knows, they mean to imply that imminent illegal orders are heading the military's way.Context: American troops are amassing outside Venezuela without any declaration of war from Congress. More Context: US forces have been bombing boats they claim are drug boats. Not legal and officers have quit over it rather than commit crimes. Others have obviously followed through. More Context: National Guard troops are deployed in many cities around the country without any legal basis (every argument gets struck down by a judge). Trump has at times called for the shooting of looters. He’s very loose with his words and often calls for violence against anyone he doesn’t like. They didn’t put out that message in a vacuum. In the National Guard case, Slotkin explicitly denied knowledge of any illegal orders that have been issued, so she's condoning the legality of existing national guard deployments. She was at a crossroads in at least two interviews thus far. She could have said that Trump had already issued illegal orders that the military should now stop executing, but she proclaimed to the country that she knows of no such orders. Supreme Court still has yet to rule on the temporary retraining order on the Illinois National Guard deployment, but that ruling is expected soon. They are not deployed in a manner contrary to judicial order.A federal appeals court allowed the Los Angeles appointment, though Portland is still under TRO. So you'll have to qualify why you dispute those facts to say they "are deployed in many cities around the country without any legal basis." For both the things you referenced in your post, I do conclude that this was not some innocent restatement of longstanding military rules. I think the viewer was meant to understand that lawless orders were imminent, though that in no way justifies Trump's response. On November 27 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote: I would expect Democrats to actually claim that these orders are issued illegally and the military should not obey them. Especially in light of the new ad and Slotkin's denials that this is happening. The reason that Slotkin & the other 5 did not do so in the wake of releasing that startling ad is worthy of an interview question, Congressional debate, and news article summaries on the legal arguments. Let me know and link away.Don't they keep firing on civilian vessels in international waters? Or is there some legal framework that makes that okay that would apply if another country started firing on US flagged vessels? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23493 Posts
On November 27 2025 05:56 KwarK wrote: Don't they keep firing on civilian vessels in international waters? Or is there some legal framework that makes that okay that would apply if another country started firing on US flagged vessels? When the same people that are sharing intel with Israel don't want to share intel with you because they are worried about you using it for illegal military strikes, I think that says something. The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal www.cnn.com I'm leaning toward it being pretty obviously illegal. Not sure what someone like Slotkin and other Democrats are missing that the UK sees? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3261 Posts
I mean it’s complicated by the fact that the US military has committed all manner of illegal actions over the years and most of them haven’t been prosecuted. The fascists could probably find a decent party line somewhere along the lines of “you’re saying you want to prosecute our brave boys for risking their lives doing the Highway of Death?” or whatever. But so far, no, it’s “the military had better follow any order no matter how illegal, and we’re gonna prosecute anybody who suggests they do otherwise!” I just don’t see how they win that fight. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24743 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10813 Posts
On November 27 2025 07:08 micronesia wrote: Disobeying an illegal order is never simple or obvious. It is one of the most challenging things of being in the military, and that's before you consider how reckless this administration is when it comes to laws and norms. And thats why it's mostly fluff so people and soldiers can feel good about the military and themselves. | ||
| ||
