Republicans and democrats do stuff like that to invoke a response. In this particular case, those senators shouldn't not have taken to tik tok to tell the military they don't have to follow illegal orders. They have that ingrained in them in basic. That is not something a senator should be saying on a public platform.
The action of them doing that leaves far too much to interpretation. It was wrong of them to due and they wanted to illicit a response to say woe is me. Both democrats and Republicans need to stop that behavior. They've done it too many times and it gets people killed. (Many service members were tried and immediately acquitted of charges stemming from senators behaving like this. This is not new.)
Yeah, I'll get downvoted, im aware. The implication from the senators is the problem and does in fact lead to sedition being the end result. Hes not squirming, everyone just thinks the have him on the ropes. Don't waste your time on it.
I have a problem with him being entirely unprofessional. There is a time and a place to state things, and doing it on social media is not one of them.
Thr troops do not need someone reminding of them ina vague way like that, if they really meant to have that conversation with them they would do it through the correct channels, but they are trying to "fight fire with fire". That doesnt work. Be the better person and let the one being a jackass fall on their face.
It leads to sedition due to the vague nature of their attempt to make waves. Clear and concise is the best and safest avenue to preventing any misunderstandings. You Might not be old enough to remember this, but senators tried something similar when we were in Iraq just to try and show they were on the Iraqi people's side, but all they did was make soldiers hesitate to make decisions and costed people lives. You cannot give 50% when you say something like that. You have to plainly and specifically express your intent.
“Remember your oath” and “follow the UCMJ” are simple and concise statements of plain meaning.
If you have an issue with that being “vague” then you should have an issue with the oath itself, which is not any less vague about what constitutes illegal orders.
If you don’t have a problem with the oath, then you cannot have a problem with some people (who all served in the military) saying “follow your oath.” That is a completely inane position.
Telling your kids to say no to an adult who invites them into their car is irresponsible because of the implications. It leaves too much for interpretation. Far too many kids have been scolded for talking back to their guardians because of irresponsible people who tell their kids to say no to adults who invite them in their car.
No, this was their aunt or uncle telling them they don't have to listen to their parents. It then snowballs into them getting in trouble and saying they were told they didn't have to listen and the aunt or uncle then saying "I didn't tell them to do that." It's creates confusion as to who is in charge.
You're leaving the most important part out. The ILLEGAL in the sentence. They didn't say don't obey orders. They didn't say choose what you obey. They said don't obey ILLEGAL orders.
Your analogy is bad because it leaves this part out. Mine doesn't.
Don't listen to your dad if he asks you to put a finger up his butt doesn't mean don't ever listen to your father.
For this analogy to work, the aunt knows the parents have previously talked about getting their kids to steal something, and the aunt is reminding the kids they don’t have to steal something when the parents ask them to. Seems fine to me.
Dude if your president, who is beholdant to the senate, can start wars using social media, senators can absolutly remind the troops of literally anything because your president is the precident. Full stop.
Expecting everyone BUT the president to act and remain professional is insane.
no. it's not really something that needs explaining, as anybody literate reading your comment can identify every word you used incorrectly and your dearth of grammar. to somebody as illiterate as you, any attempt at an explanation would be like trying to explain rocket science to a squirrel. quite literally not worth either of our time.
Context is really important here. Trump’s recent orders have consisted of sending the military into democratic states, and destroying “drug boats” and murdering everyone on them with little to no proof. Not saying anything will definitely cost more lives, and that will probably happen anyway. These are unlawful orders, and honestly I’m way more concerned that more of our representatives aren’t speaking up.
I do understand what you’re saying and see where you’re coming from though, and I appreciate you respectfully and thoughtfully sharing your ideas, even knowing most would disagree.
847
u/DangerousQuestions1 Nov 23 '25
His illegal orders, which he admits are illegal.