Waco1947 said:

---

Oligarchs and the rich make the rest of us powerless. Too much money in politics. Dems fall into the same oligarch trap as Republicans.

---

...(queue up the David Attenboro voice on a PBS nature documentary).......

"Here we see the American blue chameleon. Notice how effortlessly he morphs from Critical Theories on class to Critical Theories on race and gender....no other creature on earth is quite so facile with virtue signaling the two dialectical sides of Marxist coinage."

whiterock said:

---

....aaaaand......Democrats hug the cactus.

Utterly repugnant. https://t.co/gqrC1uNNrw

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) October 5, 2025

---

Why does their blue circle logo look like the Monopoly guy without a hat peeking around a corner?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oligarchs and the rich make the rest of us powerless. Too much money in politics. Dems fall into the same oligarch trap as Republicans. Notice the American red chameleon.

---

...(queue up the David Attenboro voice on a PBS nature documentary).......

"Here we see the American blue chameleon. Notice how effortlessly he morphs from Critical Theories on class to Critical Theories on race and gender....no other creature on earth is quite so facile with virtue signaling the two dialectical sides of Marxist coinage."

---

Not the point of my post, but your diversion does not help. Address the truth of my assertion, then we can dialogue.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

Please give a specific example where he has legitimized violence?

Do you think federal agents should be protected from radical left-wing extremists or should they be free to attack people and federal buildings? Do you support letting terrorists attack law enforcement and federal facilities? Do you cheer left-winters shooting ICE agents, presidential candidates, and public intellectuals?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

They with his studies that showed rona masks worked, school closures stopped rona, and the vaccine prevented transmission. They exist only in his weird fever dream.

whiterock said:

---

....aaaaand......Democrats hug the cactus.

Utterly repugnant. https://t.co/gqrC1uNNrw

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) October 5, 2025

---

As if you didn't already know this, politicians are full of ****.

It's not about unity, it's not about race, it's not about class...it's all about POWER.

Neither party will give an inch or call out their party member for any indiscretion short of someone actually committing murder (maybe).

Live your life, love your family, don't give politicians any of your trust.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

This thread is done, no more talking about the shooter. Just defend 2a. Most of the ultra right zealots will not read past "he was married, had a kid, was a veteran." Likely right wing.

Will it make it into the list of mass shooters talked about ad nauseum? No, and we already see a reason given, because it doesn't fit the pattern. The pattern of only talking about gay and Trans and left wing mass shooters.

And for the record, I want to keep my assault rifles. Nutsos doing nutso things should not require me to give up rights.

---

Guy was likely right wing. But I am not sure that necessarily means he was motivated by a right wing ideology, unless you're aware of information I am not.

Sounds like he hated Mormons. I suppose that could be described as right wing, but without more, who knows?

In short, I don't understand what you seem to take issue with.

---

It's the ridiculous rhetoric of this board. We hear from the usual suspects about the mentally ill left wingers shooting up a school. We are told liberalism is a mental illness. That the media fomenting this type of left wing violence. That it's just left wingers doing this. But when it's not a left winger.... crickets.

---

This is not hard. I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

Some killers have a specific, ideological-political motive.

Some do not.

Some are nuts.

A person who voted for X that commits a crime for no -political reasons should not be called an X-wing .

A guy attacking a Mormon church does not seem like he
would be motivated by right-wing politics. What
makes you think that?

I cannot recall the last time there was a right-wing person that killed Democrats just for being Democrats. We have a host of Democrats killing Republicans for being Republicans.

---

Then explain to me why, when the Nashville shooter targeted Chridtians he/she hated, we got "liberalism is a mental disorder" type rhetoric, but when this shooter targeted Mormons, which he hated, we all know nobody is going to go with "conservatism is a mental disorder." Of course, just talking about this board.

Why do all liberals get blamed for the actions of the mentally ill when they are left wing, but not the other way around?

---

It's really simple. The Gaystapo has been
launching divisive Culture War issues for years and been spreading disinformation that Conversion Therapy is life saving and not wanting a man to shower with your daughter is TRANSPHOBIC!

What did Mormons do? Be polite? Cheer too loud for BYU? Not drink Starbucks?

---

What did Christians do? Neither deserved it, dont we agree on that? So why misdirect?

Your answer cannot simply be that leftists get blamed for the actions of the mentally ill because trans. Surely there are more brain cells at work.

Of course you won't be able to answer my question. The tribalism in you would never admit your tribe loves to blame bad things on the other tribe indiscriminately. Of course, that goes both ways. They do it too.

What we lack in this thread is a deep discussion of this man's ideology, how it might have been promoted in his circles, and how to prevent it in the future.

He talked with a local politician days before the attack, and likened LDS to the anti-christ or something. I don't really think that is enough to take his guns away, and I'm not seeing a better indicator.

Still there have to be lessons that can be learned. Maybe one is to not feed into that extremist rhetoric that paints large swaths of people as evil. Historian's rhetoric, and yours Harry, even Kaibear's rhetoric, can be similar. Maybe tap the brakes once in a while on the hate.

---

Okay, so I think it will be helpful for me to take a step back and help you understand some basic realities of life. I hope this will help you understand what I apologize for thinking was easy for most folks to grasp.

First, as humans we categorize people. This could be by race, age, attractiveness, religion, political party, home town, college affiliation, favorite sports team, etc. The term "Mormon" is used for this type of classification. "Mormon" is a colloquially term for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Second, politics is the practice of how a society decided to allocate limited resources. So-called "political issues" might include tax rates, federalism, access to abortion, gun rights, tariffs ... increasingly the Democrat party has infected politics with Culture War issue like laws allowing men to compete in women's sports, shower with young girls, and provide off-label drugs to children that think they are so-called transgender, which is anti-science but consistent with a Culture War meme.

If a person attacks a group such as Mormons, that is an attack driven by a grievance directed at the group for being Mormon. The Mormon Church is conservative, but it is not as actively engaged in the public square politically as say the Catholic Church, which is both radically Pro-Life and pro-illegal immigration. The Mormon Church generally does not take public political positions and is more introspective.

So if you believe the attack on the Mormon Church was political and so-called "right wing," what issue triggered (no pun intended) the killer to attack? What evidence can you share?

Conversely, we know from the killers' writings that the attack against the schools in Minnesota and Nashville were drive by radically anti-science, Gaystapo ideology ... the killers did not really hide their motives - they felt because these schools believe in science and did not indulge the mental illness of the killers that the schools must be attacked.

If you would read my posts, I clearly make a distinction based on what the motives seem to be based on what we know. See if this makes sense ...

1. Based on what we know, the leftists that attacked Paul Pelosi and the Minnesota politician were actually mentally ill - they were crazy and could not really function in normal society

2. The attackers of the Congressional baseball game, Trump assassinations, attack on Lee Zeldine, people attacking Teslas, Burn Loot Murder, antifa, Trump assassins, Charlie Kirk's killer, the trans mass shooters ... all seem to be reacting to a particular political position that their targets took.

Since we have redefined "mental illness" to basically mean anything as a means to remove human culpability, the latter were not mentally ill to the same level of the #1 attackers, who were hearing voices and blaming spectres for their actions.

---

Quote:

---

the leftists that attacked Paul Pelosi and the Minnesota politician were actually mentally ill - they were crazy and could not really function in normal society

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi

In posts on social media and at least two blogs, DePape espoused far-right views, promoting QAnon, Pizzagate, and other far-right conspiracy theories, as well as sharing far-right Internet memes.

Your postt is a good example of how you mistate and mischaracterize facts. Partial truths, half truths, and outright mistatements.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oligarchs and the rich make the rest of us powerless. Too much money in politics. Dems fall into the same oligarch trap as Republicans.

---

" If you don't own an oil well...get one. You'll love doing business with Western. "

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

They with his studies that showed rona masks worked, school closures stopped rona, and the vaccine prevented transmission. They exist only in his weird fever dream.

---

Over two dozen studies on masks alone. You had nothing...and you're still sore about it?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oligarchs and the rich make the rest of us powerless. Too much money in politics. Dems fall into the same oligarch trap as Republicans. Notice the American red chameleon.

---

...(queue up the David Attenboro voice on a PBS nature documentary).......

"Here we see the American blue chameleon. Notice how effortlessly he morphs from Critical Theories on class to Critical Theories on race and gender....no other creature on earth is quite so facile with virtue signaling the two dialectical sides of Marxist coinage."

---

Not the point of my post, but your diversion does not help. Address the truth of my assertion, then we can dialogue.

---

First, you'd have to post a truth.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful killing, and now they're telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals, and also to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

I couldn't find any quotes at all from Hesgeth or Trump that indicated they would attempt to prosecute generals even if they did not violate the UCMJ. The most I found were statements that they would take administrative action or dismiss them (which the President is also authorized to do under Article II) if they did not follow orders on removing DEI policies or pictures of themselves in furry fetish costumes from social media.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

And why do you think Republicans dont characterize Democrats as evil? Several on this board do. Evil, mentally ill, fascists authoritarian, etc. They are just parroting what Trump says.

---

I have been calling Democrats evil when Trump was still a real estate developer and reality TV star. The writing has been on the wall on that for several decades.

---

It's extremist rhetoric. Your mirror is out there too, calling all Republicans evil for decades. It's just ignorant, and unnecessary.

---

But killing unborn humans IS evil. Releasing criminals back into society IS evil. Open borders IS evil. Pushing ****** degeneracy on children IS evil. Assassinating your political opponents IS evil. Putting porn in elementary schools IS evil. Using race to get votes then leaving those people in poverty and ignorance for decades IS evil. Sending billions to violent Muslim regimes who use that money to attack us and our allies IS evil. The problem isn't that democrats are being called evil, the problem is they ARE evil..

---

It's also evil to cal anyone that disagrees with you racist, sexist, Islamophobia, transphobic, gay phobic, fascist, THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, etc.

The left generally are evil authoritarians.

---

The evil in abortion is far moreso in the mind of the culture warriors who insist it is a right than in the heart of most of the woman getting one, who are emotionally conflicted and subjected to a lot of bad epistemology along the path to the act itself.

---

They also do very little in talking to these women after the act and the lifetime of physical ailments and regret that follow after they mutilate their child in their own womb limb from limb.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of "textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

---

The military operation in the Smith case was likewise based on the 2001 AUMF. The court held (wrongly, in my opinion) that the interpretation of the statute was a political question. But the need for congressional authorization was never in dispute. Whatever Protect Democracy's reasons for the FOIA suit may have been, the legality of the military action was not the issue raised or decided.

Standing is the most obvious reason no suits have been filed in the Venezuela cases. Trump's political enemies in the US are unlikely to have a justiciable interest.

so if no one has standing to file a lawsuit, do the lawyers still get paid?

whiterock said:

---

so if no one has standing to file a lawsuit, do the lawyers still get paid?

---

They become falling trees in the forest with no one around.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

---

The military operation in the Smith case was likewise based on the 2001 AUMF. The court held (wrongly, in my opinion) that the interpretation of the statute was a political question. But the need for congressional authorization was never in dispute. Whatever Protect Democracy's reasons for the FOIA suit may have been, the legality of the military action was not the issue raised or decided.

Standing is the most obvious reason no suits have been filed in the Venezuela cases. Trump's political enemies in the US are unlikely to have a justiciable interest.

---

Then it's not an illegal action.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

---

The military operation in the Smith case was likewise based on the 2001 AUMF. The court held (wrongly, in my opinion) that the interpretation of the statute was a political question. But the need for congressional authorization was never in dispute. Whatever Protect Democracy's reasons for the FOIA suit may have been, the legality of the military action was not the issue raised or decided.

Standing is the most obvious reason no suits have been filed in the Venezuela cases. Trump's political enemies in the US are unlikely to have a justiciable interest.

---

Then it's not an illegal action.

---

Sure it is. It's a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ and international law.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

---

The military operation in the Smith case was likewise based on the 2001 AUMF. The court held (wrongly, in my opinion) that the interpretation of the statute was a political question. But the need for congressional authorization was never in dispute. Whatever Protect Democracy's reasons for the FOIA suit may have been, the legality of the military action was not the issue raised or decided.

Standing is the most obvious reason no suits have been filed in the Venezuela cases. Trump's political enemies in the US are unlikely to have a justiciable interest.

---

Then it's not an illegal action.

---

Sure it is. It's a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ and international law.

---

Then we should see a criminal prosecution soon.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

VP is a strong voice for moral clarity.

The Democrat candidate for AG in Virginia has been fantasizing about murdering his political opponents in private messages. I'm sure the people hyperventilating about sombrero memes will join me in calling for this very deranged person to drop out of the race. https://t.co/ZapsWc9VFG

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 4, 2025

---

Absolutely inexcusable for this person to endorse violence against his political enemies. I guess the only slightly mitigating factor is that he didn't do it publicly in front of 800 general officers.

---

I assume you are talking about Hegseth's speech to officers on September 30. I couldn't find anything Hegseth said to the assembled generals and admirals that advocated for the murder of a specific individual or group of individuals. Was this a different event where he said that? Can you give us the specific quote?

Trump said recently "Our cities can be the best training areasreal-life scenarios to sharpen skills against the chaos at home." Bringing order to a city plagued by riots and crime fostered by local authorities is not inherently a call for the murder of an individual or group of individuals.
I'm not seeing anything that comes anywhere close to either of them directly stating to another politician that they are contemplating murdering a state office holder and his children, let alone doubling down on it when called out on it, and receiving support from their party's national/state level politicians for doing so.

Can you give us the quotes?

---

I'm not interested in any of these games where each side's statements have to be matched in every semantic detail before a pattern can be observed. Trump isn't bringing order. He's fueling conflict and trying to legitimize violence against communities that are seen as Democratic strongholds. Whether he directly states it to another politician, or gets called out, or doubles down, doesn't change the fact. This is not to defend what the Democrat said. The specificity certainly raises an alarm, but unlike Trump he doesn't seem to have taken any action on his twisted fantasies.

---

I see, you don't have the quotes to back up your claim. Otherwise you would just state them. I didn't ask for a complete match in "semantic detail" for the observation of a pattern. I asked for the quotes themselves. People can judge the evidence for themselves once it's shown.

If you make a claim that a statement advocating violence was made by someone, then show the statements that your claim is based on. Whatever "quotes" you are hiding are foundational for the claim you are making.

---

You already quoted the statement about using cities for "training areas." Hegseth's statement about "ridiculous rules of engagement" is another example.

They're using anti-woke reform as cover to attack military ethics, accountability, and anything else that doesn't reek of toxic masculinity.

---

A position on the ongoing debate over rules of engagement that you disagree with and a statement that the Nation Guard will get practice in mobilization and deployment in protecting ICE officers who are being assaulted and shot by leftists? I'm not seeing quotes from either of them advocating murder of any people here, let alone a specific individual and his children. This isn't even enough qualify as whataboutism.

No wonder you tried the "semantic details" rhetorical dodge here.

---

Behind that miasma of words is a simple fact -- rules of engagement are about how and when you can kill people. They're not about anything else. Trump and Hegseth have increasingly promoted unlawful conduct, and they're now telling the generals to get on board if they don't want to face termination or prosecution.

---

My words are direct, clear, and smell good.

You're still trying to say that debating rules of engagement is equivalent to a state office-holder stating multiple times he wants to murder another state office-holder and his children.
It's a fact there is a trade-off between servicemen deaths and civilian deaths in ROE rules, especially since the 1960's when fighting cultures that use civilians as shields and eschew uniforms. The casualty figures in Iraq when ROE rules changed show this. The stricter the ROE, the more Americans die. Unlike you, I don't attribute support for the assassination attempts on Trump or the murder of Charlie Kirk to those who argue for stricter rules of ROE, even though it means more American deaths. Asserting support for either position in the ROE debate is so far from repeatedly advocating for the murder of a state attorney general and his children, or supporting the assassinations of Trump or conservative leaders, that you are just trolling at this point. They are so far from being equivalent that I don't think you had any quotes in mind when you made your initial claim. I think you just picked the ones I provided because you had nothing to begin with.

The president and the Secretary of War have the right to dismiss generals and to prosecute them if they violate the UCMJ. That has no bearing on whether the ROE debate is the same as advocating the murder of American state office-holders. It's another rhetorical dodge.

The noxious fog of words are yours.

---

Trump isn't just advocating murder. He is murdering people off the coast of Venezuela, and he's giving every indication that he means to continue murdering them there and elsewhere. As repugnant as the Dem politician's comments were, Trump's actual deeds are worse. That's the context in which the statements about ROE must be understood. He's not talking about fine-tuning them. As for the UCMJ, no doubt they have the right to punish those who violate it. The problem is, they're now signaling that you can be punished for not violating it.

---

The Secretary of State has designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. The President has authority under Article II of the Constitution to order a military strike against a boat with a foreign terrorist organization crew attempting to infiltrate into the US.

---

No, he does not. Absent congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority.

---

That's false. It's already been litigated in the courts. A lawsuit based on claims on lack of Congressional authority and the insufficiency of Article II for providing authorization for the military use of force was brought against Obama for his Libya strikes. The suit was dismissed. The court said Presidential use of force is a political question. The Protect Democracy v. U.S. Departments, 2020 was brought against Trump over the strike against Soleimani. No illegal behavior was found.

That is two counterexamples to your claim that " [absent] congressional authorization or actual self-defense against an imminent attack, there is no such authority."

---

Neither case serves as a counter-example. The Kucinich lawsuit was dismissed solely on the issue of standing. The Protect Democracy suit was a FOIA request, which was ultimately granted in part. Trump justified the killing of Soleimani on the ground of imminent threat. He was lying, of course. Soleimani was on a peace mission, and Trump had authorized the attack seven months earlier. But there was still a pretense of legality at the time. That's no longer true under the new Trump regime.

---

Yes they do. The ruling on the Libya lawsuit not only ruled he had no standing (which would be odd if he was actually being asked as a military service member to carry out illegal orders), it also ruled that it was a political matter and deferred the matter to the Presidency and Congress. The court invoked precedents on the principle of ""textually demonstrable commitment" of authority being vested in the executive and legislative branches and a lack of "judicially manageable standards" for ruling on the use of force.
The Soleimani FOIA suit by Protect Democracy was filed specifically to find documents that would show the use of force order was illegal. That was the whole purpose of the lawsuit. Nothing illegal was found in the order of the use of force against the terrorist even though there was no imminent threat.
Fact is both actions were a Presidential use of force without an imminent threat and there was no judicial review that found the orders illegal and unconstitutional.

The counterexamples stand.

---

The Libya lawsuits, of which the Kucinich case was most prominent, were actions by or on behalf of lawmakers, not service members. You may have them confused with the Aulaki case, which did cite the political question doctrine. But in that case, again, there was purported authorization by Congress in the form of the 2001 AUMF.

The legality of Trump's action against Soleimani was not directly at issue in the FOIA suit. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was justified in terms of imminent threat.

---

Wrong. The court ruled in Smith vs Obama not only that Captain Smith had no standing, but that the case was about a political question. Protect Democracy stated the reason for their FOIA lawsuit was about "the legality of U.S. military action." Nothing was found that could be acted on.

If Trump's actions against a foreign terrorist organization are illegal, then why are there no lawsuits to stop them? There has been plenty of time to file one; the first boat was sunk 5 and half weeks ago. His enemies should be jumping all over themselves to file lawsuits on this if they think his use of force is illegal. Is it because of the Political Question doctrine? Recent history shows President Trump's enemies have no hesitations about filing injunctions/suits against him on other issues. So why haven't they filed one on this issue if it's "illegal?"

---

The military operation in the Smith case was likewise based on the 2001 AUMF. The court held (wrongly, in my opinion) that the interpretation of the statute was a political question. But the need for congressional authorization was never in dispute. Whatever Protect Democracy's reasons for the FOIA suit may have been, the legality of the military action was not the issue raised or decided.

Standing is the most obvious reason no suits have been filed in the Venezuela cases. Trump's political enemies in the US are unlikely to have a justiciable interest.

---

Then it's not an illegal action.

---

Sure it is. It's a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ and international law.

---

Then we should see a criminal prosecution soon.

---

Which brings us back to the point -- don't expect any accountability for blatant crimes under this leadership.