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: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.
I wouldn't expect any if he and our military servicemen in the Gulf didn't do anything illegal.
