A blast from the past:

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper says that former President Trump asked authorities if they could shoot protesters in the legs amid the demonstrations that filled the streets of Washington following the murder of George Floyd.

“Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” Esper says Trump said.

Click to expand...

Those guardrails in the likes of Mark Esper are gone. And in his place is the arrogant Pete (US accidentally invades Mexico) Hegseth. Those guardrails within the executive branch and congress itself for that matter, are now gone.

ThatRobGuy said:

There's a big difference between an older servicemen (who's already got his 20 in) opting to retire based on a philosophical disagreement...

...and 19-23 year old being encouraged to disobey orders they may disagree with on the basis of congressmen steering them in that direction.

Click to expand...

....or a 19-23 year old being appraised through outside counsel being so concerned of their ultimate bosses penchant of disregarding legalities.

rambot said:

Good for him. Those are nice gestures.

Click to expand...

I agree. If this list is correct and President Trump acted kindly, we should thank him for it.

One issue with critics of President Trump is their tendency to criticize indiscriminately, without discerning when it is appropriate. At times, it appears as though they have not considered the lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Every action, tweet, or gesture is subject to criticism. Consequently, his supporters are often unreceptive to any critique and may claim that even if President Trump were to cure cancer, he would not receive recognition for it. While targeted criticism on specific issues may not necessarily persuade MAGA supporters, it raises the question of whether it is beneficial to criticize every aspect, especially when the President demonstrates kindness.

BCP1928 said:

Excessive religiousity is always a problem where it justifies aggressive violence.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it's not the excessive quality that creates the problem. It is the source materials and the example set by Muhammad and his immediate successors.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think the implications of their public statement was pretty clear, and they're attempting to use the servicemen as pawns in their political games based on their own personal interpretation of the circumstances

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

Given that, if I'm not mistaken, this is the same group of people that just introduced legislation to try to explicitly limit domestic deployments last week... it's pretty clear what they're referring to

Click to expand...

Ensuring that our military is not used unlawfully against our citizens is not a "political game." I fully support their efforts to draw attention to a president's spoken intentions that if implemented, are more than likely - illegal. As I write this, CBP officers are violating the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens. Military members need to realize they are in greater legal jeopardy serving under this president. It has not been a concern in the past as prior presidents didn't order the military execute civilians on the high seas...as just one example that has already happened. Trump will continue to push the enveleope unless we stand up and stop him.


Trump, speaking to assembled Senior military leaders earlier this year:

"And people other than politicians, that looked bad, they think. The Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape. We have many cities in great shape too, by the way. I want you to know that. But it seems that the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats, what they've done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they're very unsafe places. And we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within. "

....
"We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military national guard, but military. "

ThatRobGuy said:

...but if the democrats are going to claim to be the "adults in the room", then this sort of goading to get a response out of him just so that we can all have the conversation we're having now, should be beneath them. That's doubly true when they're making implied suggestions to troops to do things that could land troops in legal hot water and ruin their careers.

Click to expand...

You think people like Sen Kelly did this to goad the POTUS into saying the Senator should be executed? Really?

Trump is accountable for his own reactions.

And his reaction is telling. After all, if all of his future orders are legal, whats the big deal?

Apple Sky said:

What is this, some sort of psychiatric test ?

Click to expand...

No, but you didn't address those who have seen the globe with their own eyes. I know you think them all liars. So, you have become predictable.

Vambram said:

Yes we will. But for me and my fellow soldiers, this is NOT a laughing matter.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. If you voted for Trump and support his illegal actions, you would be just as guilty ad he is.

Vambram said:

Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn

While the lawmakers behind the video framed the appeal as a defense of the Constitution, military legal codes make clear that refusing orders can carry devastating penalties.

www.foxnews.com

Click to expand...

A superior orders a soldier to engage in war crimes, such as:

Targeting civilians intentionally.
Torturing prisoners of war.
Looting or pillaging property.
A commanding officer orders personnel to suppress lawful protests in violation of First Amendment rights.
Violations of International Laws

It is a service member's duty to disobey unlawful orders. You can be court marshaled for obeying them.

Fervent said:

I haven't gone to trouble to demonstrate it, I've maintained that it is based on my assessment of what is fundamental to Islam in its purest form. As for a solution, it requires first broad recognition of the danger and then we can start talking about solutions. The paradox of tolerance comes into play, and I wouldn't say that excessive religiosity is the problem in fundamentalist Islam but that Islam is a praxis-based religion with the central means of defining appropriate praxis being the behavior of a 7th century warlord.

Click to expand...

Excessive religiousity is always a problem where it justifies aggressive violence.

RDKirk said:

Notice, he did not disobey the orders.

He was, apparently, bothered significantly by the question of legality, and took the option open to him.

Of course, retiring as a four-star flag officer is not a loss of any kind. That's a pretty good "win." Shed no tears for him.

Click to expand...

Yes. That accounts for the commander. I am not military but it would seem to me your average private doesn't have the option to just announce a retirement date. Again, it's not a PR stunt. They are voicing concern. And with good reason.

Vambram said:

Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn

While the lawmakers behind the video framed the appeal as a defense of the Constitution, military legal codes make clear that refusing orders can carry devastating penalties.

www.foxnews.com

Troops are going to get court martialed if they do what those Democrats want.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. To understand what is legal and illegal is why they are consulting attorneys prior.

Jerry N. said:

That's what I expected. You seem rather selective about what you refute.

Click to expand...

What is this, some sort of psychiatric test ?

Always in His Presence said:

ah, the Hitler card - says everything I need to hear -

Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt that.

Always in His Presence said:

and the reality is the man in known for his generosity -

Click to expand...

No, the reality is that he's done some generous things in his life. AFAIK, all (or at least most) of the things you listed are true. That's a good thing. But being "known for" generosity is well beyond just doing a handful of generous things over the course of a few decades.

But this is really your point, isn't it? You're not trying to provide "balance"; you're trying to rewrite the narrative about him. You're not saying "he also does some generous things." You're saying that he is "known for his generosity." What you're engaging in here is not balance; it's low-effort sycophancy. I didn't make the Hitler comment because I think Trump is "literally Hitler" (I don't), but rather to illustrate how 1.) even the worst people can have some redeeming qualities, and 2.) how those redeeming qualities are usually irrelevant in light of the overwhelming amount of bad stuff they do.

Trump donates his salary? That's great, but not enough to absolve him and his family of making >1000x that by trading on his position in office.

He paid off somebody's mortgage? That's not enough to absolve him of all of the money he cheated people out of with his Trump U scam.

He funded the education of a classmate's family? That's not enough to absolve him of whatever underserved groups fall through the cracks from his gutting the Department of Education.

He gave office space to the Rainbow Coalition? That's not enough to absolve him of haphazardly devastating a whole host of NGO's.

He assisted a Marine detained abroad? That's not enough to absolve him of his blatant weaponization of the DOJ, trying to jail his political opponents, or deliberately denying due process right to people caught up in his immigration raids.

He supported black entrepreneurs? That doesn't absolve him of cheating all those contractors and business associates over the years.

He has done, and continues to do, a lot of bad things - some misguided, many blatantly immoral. And that will be true no matter how hard you try to convince yourself or the rest of us otherwise.

rjs330 said:

I would be compassionate by telling the guy to go home and then let them know they are welcome to apply to come back legally.

Click to expand...

I'm aware that many Americans make exactly the same argument you mentioned here. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don’t know the law. However, as an immigrant, you should understand very well that what you're suggesting is not accurate. As an immigrant, you should know that anyone who entered the United States unlawfully can never return to the U.S. through legal means. They can't even complete the immigration form if they previously entered the U.S. illegally.

What you're proposing isn't truly compassionate advice; it's insincere guidance that you know they won't be able to follow.

CLEEB said:

I just read your last email and on this subject I agree with you. Agape is Greek for GODLY love that HE gives us freely and we need to return freely. The lake of fire exists for a reason. Salvation can be lost. This is also by free will. GOD is wanting quality not quantity. GOD does know our choices before we make them but doesn't make them for us. You are correct that this issue has been pounded to much.

Click to expand...

Hey, but we can't truly have love, because it's not "complete" love.
So, we cannot truly love one another. Get what I'm saying.
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. Don't mind me.

Say it aint so said:

Not a PR stunt. This is one of the premises for the video:

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations​

The question of legality led to the Southcom Commander quitting.

Click to expand...

Notice, he did not disobey the orders.

He was, apparently, bothered significantly by the question of legality, and took the option open to him.

Of course, retiring as a four-star flag officer is not a loss of any kind. That's a pretty good "win." Shed no tears for him.

BCP1928 said:

You aren't responsible for getting off topic. One cannot do that alone. However, on topic or not, you have gone to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that Islam presents an existential threat to Western society and it seems to me that you might least give a suggestion as to what you think we should do about it. And since the OP topic is about loss of religiousity in the US, I wondered if you could relate that in some way to the excessive religiousity of radical Islam.

Click to expand...

I haven't gone to trouble to demonstrate it, I've maintained that it is based on my assessment of what is fundamental to Islam in its purest form. As for a solution, it requires first broad recognition of the danger and then we can start talking about solutions. The paradox of tolerance comes into play, and I wouldn't say that excessive religiosity is the problem in fundamentalist Islam but that Islam is a praxis-based religion with the central means of defining appropriate praxis being the behavior of a 7th century warlord.

I hate ICE because it dilutes my rum.

AV1611VET said:

View attachment 373446

Click to expand...

I have to say: it's things like this that make me think the ability of disliking posts would be a good thing for this site.

AV1611VET said:

From AI Overview:

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable, educated guess that guides a scientific study by making a specific prediction about the relationship between variables. It serves to provide a clear focus for the research, ensuring that data collection and analysis are purposeful and aligned with the study's goals. Without a hypothesis, research can be aimless, and it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or establish causality.

Miller-Urey tested that hypothesis and failed.

Click to expand...

That's one of the big lies of Biblical creationism--that Miller and Urey were trying to create life in that flask. Have you ever read their actual paper?

AV1611VET said:

Demonstrating that abiogenesis isn't science.

I'll make a prediction:

You'll never create life in a laboratory.

Why?

It's not science.

Nature doesn't deal with trying to kick-start life ... and never did.

She has other things to concentrate on.

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?

Click to expand...

If Trump issues such an order, you can bet that the White House lawyers will have couched it in terms that it would not be "manifestly illegal."

Like the invasions of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq.

CLEEB said:

If there is no free will then why doesn't GOD just convert everyone instead of allowing them to be trapped in evil ? Remember, that forbidden fruit was the knowledge of GOOD as well as evil. People are capable of doing good on a human level. James describes the human sinful condition. James 1: 13-15 it is our own lust that is sin, GOD doesn't tempt any to sin, its all on us.

Click to expand...

It's all up to us, yes. You are right on that point.
We all have the choice to do, or not to do... As you repeatedly quoted... Deuteronomy 30:19
Joshua, who succeeded Moses, told the people, "if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve... As for me and my house[hold], we will serve the LORD!” Joshua 24:15
Pretty simple and straightforward. No one is forced, but freely, and willingly make a decision.

BCP1928 said:

Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?

Click to expand...

I will answer for me as I am currently serving and may be close to the area. In my opinion no, it would not be illegal. To me it is little different from the invasions of Gernada and Panama. Questionable? Ill advised? Sure, but not illegal.

Unlike the other two that for the most part kept secret, we are allowing Venezuela to prepare a grand reception that will rival any to ever occur in the new golden ballroom.

Fervent said:

You ask me a question, and then go on to basically accuse me of being responsible for getting off topic as if you and others haven't been pressing me on the matter and I have repeatedly attempted to shut down the discussion. Given your clear biases, I'm not concerned with your opinion on how I present religiousity.

Click to expand...

You aren't responsible for getting off topic. One cannot do that alone. However, on topic or not, you have gone to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that Islam presents an existential threat to Western society and it seems to me that you might least give a suggestion as to what you think we should do about it. And since the OP topic is about loss of religiousity in the US, I wondered if you could relate that in some way to the excessive religiousity of radical Islam.

High Fidelity said:

A city-state surrounded by walls filled with armed guards has no place in this conversation.

Click to expand...

Do you when John Paul II was shot and he forgave his would be assassin?

I find these suicides horrifying. People were upset when the cult "Heaven's Gate" committed mass suicide, but this is ok?