sherpa Posted January 9 Posted January 9 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: and risk a mutiny charge? it would set an example for the upcoming shooting civil war... Idiotic. You clearly don't understand this. I am repeatedly surprised by how little a couple of people who post here regularly know about these issues. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) Just now, sherpa said: Idiotic. You clearly don't understand this. I am repeatedly surprised by how little a couple of people who post here regularly know about these issues. why idiotic? if i were able to I'd do it. or the most serious applicable charge for at least a court martial or dishonorable discharge. forewarn them of course...what is the worst possible charge for denying a direct order? insubordination, treason? what sentence do those carry? the prez is commander in chief and could order it. why wouldn't he want bad seeds out of the military? dishonorably d/c and let them get killed with the militia forces... Edited January 9 by Joe Ferguson forever
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 9 Posted January 9 https://www.semafor.com/article/01/09/2024/trump-immunity-hearing-president-assassinate-rival-not-prosecuted
sherpa Posted January 9 Posted January 9 8 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: why idiotic? if i were able to I'd do it. or the most serious applicable charge for at least a court martial or dishonorable discharge. forewarn them of course...what is the worst possible charge for denying a direct order? insubordination, treason? what sentence do those carry? I have no interest in responding to these ignorant fantasies. The issue is not with those who would not respond to an illegal order, it is with those who would issue an illegal order. They would be removed instantaneously, and the issue would never come to whether or not such an idiotic and illegal order was responded to. 1 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) Just now, sherpa said: I have no interest in responding to these ignorant fantasies. The issue is not with those who would not respond to an illegal order, it is with those who would issue an illegal order. They would be removed instantaneously, and the issue would never come to whether or not such an idiotic and illegal order was responded to. if it came from the prez. there's a chain of command non? trump's attorneys have pondered him ordering political killings. why wouldn't bidens ponder this. it's at least a possibility and you reject it out of hand. why? it works great for biden and america imo Edited January 9 by Joe Ferguson forever
sherpa Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: if it came from the prez. there's a chain of command non? Too much you don't understand about this. I don't have any interest in informing you. 1 1 1
Tiberius Posted January 9 Posted January 9 41 minutes ago, sherpa said: Ya I do know. The evidence is overwhelming that you have absolutely no idea about the UCMJ or what that entails. Similar to the red tail guy's claims months ago about the US using it's military to strike domestic targets. The same as you have absolutely no idea about weapons selection regarding mission goals, and how that issue determines what is used. No surprise there, but your posts are funny. You are missing the point. Under this Trump doctrine, Biden could just have political opponents murdered. Do you understand that?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) Just now, Tiberius said: You are missing the point. Under this Trump doctrine, Biden could just have political opponents murdered. Do you understand that? he's a troll. an informed one on military subjects but still a troll. if i were prez i'd make the order noted above. much to win, little to gain. why wouldn't biden? he doesn't want to answer when pressed. sign of a troll or a cult maga. anyone in the military know why he would disagree with this? Edited January 9 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Unforgiven Posted January 9 Posted January 9 12 minutes ago, sherpa said: Too much you don't understand about this. I don't have any interest in informing you. You're trying to communicate with basement dwelling halfwits. I live in a deep blue state and I have yet to come across one real person in the wild with these same beliefs. 1
Tiberius Posted January 9 Posted January 9 31 minutes ago, Unforgiven said: You're trying to communicate with basement dwelling halfwits. I live in a deep blue state and I have yet to come across one real person in the wild with these same beliefs. You are a clown 🤡 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted January 9 Posted January 9 46 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You are missing the point. Under this Trump doctrine, Biden could just have political opponents murdered. Do you understand that? Well, this discussion went off the rails in record time… …. Here’s the real Trump doctrine: - the President could accept bribes, could have political opponents killed, etc, and he would not face arrest/imprisonment UNTIL he is impeached and “convicted” by the Senate - contrary to what Mitch McConnell and other Republicans argued on the second Trump impeachment, the new Trump doctrine says that even after the President becomes a private citizen, he’d have to be hauled before Congress and impeached/“convicted” by the Senate before criminal charges could be brought - the judges brought up absurd examples of crimes that are clearly not within the President’s official duties to see if Trump’s attorney would concede anything. “You mean even if it was undisputed that the sitting President had a rival killed, and even after his term is over, he couldn’t be criminally prosecuted unless impeached/convicted by the Senate first? And Trump’s attorney said “yup, that’s our argument” - of course, this would mean there was no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon, and that McConnell and Co were wrong when they said “it’s too late to impeach Trump, he’s no longer President, they should just prosecute him.” And it would incentivize an old codger like Biden to do all sorts of mischief in his last days in office, knowing that he wouldn’t outlive an impeachment proceeding followed by a criminal charge, etc. 1
sherpa Posted January 9 Posted January 9 52 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: he's a troll. an informed one on military subjects but still a troll. if i were prez i'd make the order noted above. much to win, little to gain. why wouldn't biden? he doesn't want to answer when pressed. sign of a troll or a cult maga. anyone in the military know why he would disagree with this? Because it's illegal. You'd make the order? You'd be impeached and convicted at the speed of light. The suggestion is idiotic, and the product of someone incredibly ill informed about law and the military. If understanding that, and trying to explain it to you and your wingy makes me a troll, so be it. I see it as a service. 1
John from Riverside Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: and risk a mutiny charge? it would set an example for the upcoming shooting civil war... If I could interject into this, just a minute Seal team six would never do this. There is a chain command, and it is through that chain of command. They are protected and not taking such an order. At least that is how it stands today thank God 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted January 9 Posted January 9 36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, this discussion went off the rails in record time… …. Here’s the real Trump doctrine: - the President could accept bribes, could have political opponents killed, etc, and he would not face arrest/imprisonment UNTIL he is impeached and “convicted” by the Senate - contrary to what Mitch McConnell and other Republicans argued on the second Trump impeachment, the new Trump doctrine says that even after the President becomes a private citizen, he’d have to be hauled before Congress and impeached/“convicted” by the Senate before criminal charges could be brought - the judges brought up absurd examples of crimes that are clearly not within the President’s official duties to see if Trump’s attorney would concede anything. “You mean even if it was undisputed that the sitting President had a rival killed, and even after his term is over, he couldn’t be criminally prosecuted unless impeached/convicted by the Senate first? And Trump’s attorney said “yup, that’s our argument” - of course, this would mean there was no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon, and that McConnell and Co were wrong when they said “it’s too late to impeach Trump, he’s no longer President, they should just prosecute him.” And it would incentivize an old codger like Biden to do all sorts of mischief in his last days in office, knowing that he wouldn’t outlive an impeachment proceeding followed by a criminal charge, etc. What's next? Quick ruling? 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) Just now, sherpa said: Because it's illegal. You'd make the order? You'd be impeached and convicted at the speed of light. The suggestion is idiotic, and the product of someone incredibly ill informed about law and the military. If understanding that, and trying to explain it to you and your wingy makes me a troll, so be it. I see it as a service. so what if congress makes it legal? both houses are D? then what? and impeach on what legal grounds? pass the law before the order to arrest. Do u find that scenario far fetched? it actually only takes the senate to stop the impeachment. and he could still threaten without breaking any law. then get the law passed and dishonorably discharge them at a later date if an insurrection occurs and they do it again.... Edited January 9 by Joe Ferguson forever
Tiberius Posted January 10 Posted January 10 1 hour ago, sherpa said: Because it's illegal. Y But only if he was impeached and convicted by the senate. That's the point 1
Tiberius Posted January 10 Posted January 10 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Well, this discussion went off the rails in record time… …. Here’s the real Trump doctrine: - the President could accept bribes, could have political opponents killed, etc, and he would not face arrest/imprisonment UNTIL he is impeached and “convicted” by the Senate - contrary to what Mitch McConnell and other Republicans argued on the second Trump impeachment, the new Trump doctrine says that even after the President becomes a private citizen, he’d have to be hauled before Congress and impeached/“convicted” by the Senate before criminal charges could be brought - the judges brought up absurd examples of crimes that are clearly not within the President’s official duties to see if Trump’s attorney would concede anything. “You mean even if it was undisputed that the sitting President had a rival killed, and even after his term is over, he couldn’t be criminally prosecuted unless impeached/convicted by the Senate first? And Trump’s attorney said “yup, that’s our argument” - of course, this would mean there was no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon, and that McConnell and Co were wrong when they said “it’s too late to impeach Trump, he’s no longer President, they should just prosecute him.” And it would incentivize an old codger like Biden to do all sorts of mischief in his last days in office, knowing that he wouldn’t outlive an impeachment proceeding followed by a criminal charge, etc. The discussion went off the rails when Trump's lawyers made this incredible absurd arguments in a real court of law. The Republicans also complained at time about the impeachment of Trump was "just" political. Yet Today Trump's team was arguing that only through the political process of impeachment could the president be brought to justice. Heads they win... 1
Kemp Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 15 hours ago, sherpa said: They wouldn't show up. She has said, repeatedly, that the man was OK when he was elected, but that time has passed and everything about him is surrounded by chaos, and we don't need nor want that. She says it all the time. She is correct, and that's why I like her. She certainly is not "spineless," per your claim. So, you believe that "chaos follows him" is going after him when he's the cause of the chaos? She makes Trump sound like the character in Peanuts that is followed around by dirt. She can't even criticize a man who tried to overthrow a democracy, instead saying he was a good President. She can't even call him out for saying he wants to be a dictator. For his admiration for every despot in the world. Then again, i very much doubt you can either. If he offered her the VP spot, do you think she would accept it? She's not lockstep with him like most of the other Republican chores. That’s about the best thing I can say about her. 1
Recommended Posts