- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump didn’t actually name any names connected to seditious behavior
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And nobody can point to what law was broken (with some irony in there, I must add)
1. This is false. Anyone CAN point to the law that was broken.
Citing a law is what you are arguing against. Apparently you don't believe the law is actually the law. You have gone off the deep end.
1
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:39 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
you would have to acknowledge that Trump didn't ackshywully charge anyone with sedition.
The problem is, I never alleged this.
But you fight against them strawmen. It's what you do.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
It's the whole tomayto-tomahto deal of puffery, I suppose.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:41 pm to omegaman66
quote:
This is false. Anyone CAN point to the law that was broken.
They can cite a law, but not one that was broken.
quote:
Citing a law is what you are arguing against.
No. I said it's not possible. The argument is that there is no illegality.
The consequence of that argument is that nobody can point to a law that was broken.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
read better. I am asking why you are here bitching like a hysterical woman, because it simply cant be due to the contradition I outlined.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:42 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It's the whole tomayto-tomahto deal of puffery, I suppose.
To an extent, but one side's point is squarely within the law and the other looks like an unhinged retard arguing a path outside of the law.
Again, MAGA stupidity. muh fight nonsense
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:42 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I am asking why you are here bitching
Again, you're asking about something that isn't occurring.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are definitely bitching. I'll ask again. Why are you here attacking OP for making the exact same logical connection you made in the original thread?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:45 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You are definitely bitching.
Naw.
I expect the MAGA stupidity. I take joy in pointing it out.
quote:
Why are you here attacking OP for making the exact same logical connection you made in the original thread?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No!
"They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty service members to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders!"
---
So that is a lie.
They are not literally doing that.
Often the word "literally" in your posts is literal pleonasm.
In this case though, it goes beyond that. The applicable term would be "technically," not literally. Because the literal implication to young servicemen and women is there are unlawful orders being issued, and it is therefore unlawful to follow them. That is the literal purpose of the clip.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
so you are just here to be a contrarian troll. Just like every other day.
at least we got that cleared up.
at least we got that cleared up.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:47 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
"Every single order that is given to this United States military by this Commander in Chief and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War is lawful and the courts have proven that."
Exactly. US Representatives and Senators are sowing doubt into the minds of the military soldier. That split second of doubt after receiving a lawful command could be the difference of life or death for the soldier or soldiers under command of that soldier.
There are, of course, those struggling lawyers on this board who would love to see soldiers be forced to contact a lawyer before following a command.
Hence, the planned and coordinated statements by the Democratic politicians to sow doubt among soldiers and dissension within the populace.
Please let me know if such comments by politicians has ever occurred before regarding military command orders.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:47 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
so you are just here to be a contrarian troll. Just like every other day.
No. You're creating a question based on a strawman. I'm just pointing that out in real time.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Often the word "literally" in your posts is literal pleonasm.
It was intentionally meant to mean the textbook definition of "literally"
quote:
The applicable term would be "technically," not literally
Naw.
quote:
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You *must* refuse illegal orders.
Literally is applicable.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:48 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
I personally believe what Trump did was more of a warning shot than anything to the dems to watch their rhetoric because they were dangerously close to seditious behavior.
But the lawyers involved might see they actually stepped over the line
He always gives the guilty an opportunity to do the right thing. When they choose to continue in their schemes, then they willingly put their own liberty at risk.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's nonsensical diversion tactics to avoid having the actual discussion about the actual words used.
This is your schtick
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:51 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
This is your schtick
Yes, I try my best to keep things on point and relevant and avoid unnecessary diversions.
Just like it's my thing to point out straw man arguments
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
You know those Dems were trying to create the impression that Trump was giving illegal orders.
Trump played the game right back.
I don't know why yall keep arguing about this.
Trump played the game right back.
I don't know why yall keep arguing about this.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
:
they were dangerously close to seditious behavior.
quote:.
Not really
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:55 pm to hawgfaninc
He just threw it back at them and used the same tactic they did.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News