politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Problem is I don’t see any person in military doing this. They’re been brainwashed to love their country and their president since birth.
Well, yeah. When you're planning a military coup against a fascist regime you don't announce it ahead of time.
During training we are very specifically taught that nothing is above the constitution, including the president. We are obligated to refuse illegal orders.
If it stuck with me, hopefully it stuck with a few of the people still in service.
Isn't a large part of the federal workforce veterans? I can't imagine active service members have good feelings about Trump kicking them to the curb
apparently not... it's alredy happening and the entire rrction have been tears and bending over
Refusing illegal orders is something that always sounds good, but never goes well even when it rarely happens in real life. Otherwise the crazy numerous war crimes and illegal things the air force kidnapping citizens human trafficked and abused by ICE because they are brown and "might be illegal" wouldn't happen.
There was that Russian submarine commander that refused to launch nukes and saved the world. That's a pretty big one.
Vasily Arkhipov to put some respect on his name.
Not to discredit what he did because he was probably one of the biggest impact decisions taken ever, he is definitely a great man and he deserves every ounce of credit, but he did not defy orders. They received no orders whatsoever, and the captain just assumed a war had broken out. They were too deep to receive orders at all. He refused to give his permission which was "legally" (military law-wise?) needed to launch the nukes. From your own link (also he wasn't a commander at the time):
So it doesn't really apply. It is more one of 3 commanding officers that had a big disagreement and one of them refused to let the others give the order.
I have zero special knowledge, but generic history would suggest that at least some in the officer class, regardless of political leaning, will not be down with the current trajectory.
no idea what this may look like, but my worthless analysis portends something brewing ahead and it may be wise to consider possibilities and prep accordingly. fuck these "interesting times".