You're never going to say it's BS. You'll just die on your "it's different standards" hill. Probably best to just move on at this point. See you next clearance thread
Active Duty Major calls for Trump to be impeached and removed
- Thread starter RoseBowlorBust
- Start date
You're using AI to score this thing? Talk about being driven by emotion in this thread.
Also today Trump is leading more political speeches and forcing more uniformed military members to attend. Fire this clown already.
Analyze =/= score but I have zero interest in trying to explain the difference.
I scored the AI's score as a failure.
It can't even get the intent of the thread correct. Rosebowl created the thread. So it's his to decide what the original point is. That's not disputable. AI has no choice but to concede that Rosebowl is the only one who has the authority to set what the original point will be.
And Rosebowl chose the morality "dissent" angle. So any post that deviates from that isn't in factual support of the point of the thread. It's in factual support of something another poster rather talk about instead.
Now there's nothing wrong with that. I personally like threads with several different things being talked about. But AI is dumb. It doesn't actually understand this stuff. So it claims that Rosebowl isn't being factual enough, that Alaska is being factual enough, and then wrongly scores the whole thread as Rosebowl not being able to support his arguments in anymore than an emotional way but Alaska as being able to support his arguments in a very factual way.
It's a difference between subjective and objective claims. AI can't keep track of that. The thread was started under subjective claims. So I have no idea where AI is going in saying that objective claims are somehow more factual within this thread. They're not. In fact, they're actually less factual since the whole point of the thread is to be subjective.
AI is stupid. It makes lots of errors. I wish people would stop using it for stuff like this.
Huey, unplug. Put down all screens and devices for 2 weeks. You can do it. No, you dont just need to xxxxx... use youe phone as a phone and work computer for work ****. No TV. You will live a longer happier life if you do so.
You are talking about stuff here that you know better than me so I have no reply. I will say that I trust Hegseth and I trust Trump to do whats right for the nation.Whether I was read into this operation is completely irrelevant. I already know categories of information and how to determine classification levels is spelled out for us in the applicable SCG. Here's an example from open source:
View attachment 1350629
Regardless, tthe DoD Inspector General came to the same conclusion in his report last Decemebr. The OIG compared the Signal chat to the original USCENTCOM SECRET//NOFORN operational emails and said a lot of what Hegseth sent on Signal matched information USCENTCOM hadclassified as SECRET//NOFORN
. The OIG also said he transmitted sensitive, nonpublic operational information over Signal in violation of DoDI 8170.01. That's not my opinion...that's the DoD's Inspector General's finding.
The funny thing is, I had this argument 8 months before this report even came out and didn't come across it until tonight. I already knew I was telling you fact, not opinion, but this pretty much solidifies it. Unless you think the OIG is just giving an opinion.
Read it for yourself.
LINK to DODIG_2026_021.PDF: https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/...nses-reported-use-of-a-commercially-availabl/
Why wasn't there any punishment? "The rules are for thee, not for me." The Secretary of Push-ups is an OCA, so he basically reclassified the stuff and left all of us in the IC looking at each other like, WTF!? It's the same reaction we ALL had when Hillary did it. The protection of National Security information is non-partisan, so the double standard is bs!
You're right, I'm probably never going to say it's BS because I genuinely don't think it is. Those regulations exist to keep the military apolitical and loyal to the Constitution...not to some administration or political party. That's a hill I'm perfectly fine dying on because I believe the same standards should apply to everyone. Imagine if some MAGA was up there in uniform demanding Biden be impeached or Obama, etc. Military members have NEVER been permitted to do so.
FWIW, it's not like he doesn't have other avenues either...obviously he can vote, he can also write or contact his elected representatives. He can even file complaints through his chain of command or Inspector General if he believes laws or regulations are being violated. Another advantage he has as a commissioned officer is resigning (us non-coms don't have that luxury). However, as @tarheelbybirth1 pointed out, he clearly knew the consequences and chose this avenue, so good on him. It's certainly his perogative. I'd venture to say, his goal wasn't to change the regs, but rather to use those regs to help bolster his move.
If I were driven by emotion, I wouldn't have asked AI to analyze the discussion. I'd just assume I was right.
Maybe so, but go back and look who I was originally reponding to. Hint, it wasn't you. It was to Tiger, RoseBowl and Scrubby. Heck, even RoseBowl said, "He is knowing full well the righteous "consequences" (Post #15). Then you chimed in with a direct question to me, "How is he violating military regs?" I answered it. You didn't like my answer because it didn't contain an emotionally driven rant about how I hate Trump.
So, here we are. You're arguing against a position I wasn't taking. I understood Rosebowl's original point. I wasn't trying to refute the morality question in the OP. I was responding to the factual claims that came later...like whether the major violated military regulations, whether punishment was appropriate, ect. Once those claims entered the discussion, the applicable DoD regulations became relevant. That's the conversation I was participating in. Nothing more. Heck, I even offered to take you up on discussing how horrible Trump is, but told you it'd be futile because I already agree with you.
Not sure how you got lost on these points, Huey. I remained pretty solidly on track.
I said, I was just curious. I'd never done it before, found its findings interesting and emotionless. Don't overthink it. Also, I think it nailed Tarheel, no?
Last edited:
We could discuss that in a different thread, but you have to at least recognize (especially after I showed you the OIG official findings), that there is a clear double standard for politicians and military members.
O great... in addition to retard I have to add bigot to my level of expectation for you.
I'm in your head pisspants.
Super, so this is the personality we're dealing with today, Sybil? You should have a convo with some of your other personalities and get it all worked out. micropeen microbrain micro-bank-account says: "I'm taking a break from calling people f@gs, as if I'm an incredibly insecure 12 year old boy, to call someone a bigot for joking that I'm gay for being well dressed."
AI also thinks WDDT is helping the thread by keeping us light hearted with his well placed comical observations.
If you want to hinge your arguments on misguided stuff like that then I guess there's not much I can change your mind on things.
Again nobody should be arrested for their opinion regardless of how "double standard" it is. Dishonorable discharge for his remarks?! OK, that seems fair. Arrested? GTFO. The fact that you can't admit how archeic it is says more about you than the law itself.
I find it ironic you complain about your old man's narrow mind but can't get out of your own way here. Apple doesn't fall from the tree as they say.
Active military also has the obligation to oppose illegal directives and the sworn duty to defend the constitution and not the president.
Trump's entire second term is directing the military to conduct illegal acts and he has tried repeatedly to shred the constitution.
There is no comparison of any other president acting like this. A Major speaking out like this may be technically illegal. But it seems silly to call him anything but a hero to risk his safety under the insane conditions Trump has placed us all under. And it's most definitely silly for anyone to call for his imprisonment.
no arguments were hinged, in the harmless analysis. don't over think it.
yes, it clearly doesn't know WDDT.
you should really research and understand the purpose of the reg and the ramifications of its removal before you continue.
this Major speaking on something we agree on isn't the reason you think it is, I assure you.
To be fair, you kinda are trying to prove your point with this AI. Otherwise you wouldn't have used it as supportive evidence of your claims.no arguments were hinged, in the harmless analysis. don't over think it.
yes, it clearly doesn't know WDDT.
My point is that this AIs analysis is at least partly flawed, which you agree and concede to.
You and PW just aren't getting this. Whether Trump is awful, wonderful, or somewhere in between is irrelevant to whether an active-duty officer publicly advocates for the removal of an elected president while identifying himself as an officer. The regulation exists regardless of who occupies the White House. PERIOD.
Even if I accepted every premise you laid out...that Trump has acted unconstitutionally, issued illegal directives, and is uniquely dangerous (which I'm not even disagreeing with at this point), it still wouldn't answer whether active-duty officers should be publicly engage in partisan political advocacy while serving. Again, the reg wasn't written for one president. It exists to preserve an apolitical military under every administration.
If an officer receives a direct order or is asked to participate in an unlawful action, he has both the right and the duty to refuse it and to use the established legal and military reporting channels. That's very different from publicly calling for the President's removal while on active duty. ...that decision belongs to Congress (and probably the courts and us voters to some extent).
I honestly don't know how else to explain it.
I didn't use it as "evidence of claims." I actually used the UCMJ and DoD regulations for that. What led me to the analysis request was clicking on ghee's emotional posters thread if I'm being 100% honest. So I copied all 5 pages one at a time and asked it to analyse the thread intent and its participants w/o bias. Then I posted its results.
Not sure how those results provide any evidence to me simply answering your original question, "How is he violating military regs?" I answered it. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.
Great. We agree that AI sucks at picking up contextual clues and this analysis should be viewed as nothing more than a bit of entertainment.
Someone rang?
Seriously, while I never served in the military thank GOD there are rules like that in place. The military needs to remain neutral. JFC, could you imagine Trump using the military to run America. I know some nimwads in this thread already think he is, but maybe they should look at Saddam or Castro for a better example.
I think that tar guy hit the nail on the head. This guy totally knew his career would be over, but feels Trump is a big enough POS that it was worth it. Time will tell if it was, but I'm glad we don't have military people doing this on the daily, the armed forces would go to $h!t pretty fast.
Seriously, while I never served in the military thank GOD there are rules like that in place. The military needs to remain neutral. JFC, could you imagine Trump using the military to run America. I know some nimwads in this thread already think he is, but maybe they should look at Saddam or Castro for a better example.
I think that tar guy hit the nail on the head. This guy totally knew his career would be over, but feels Trump is a big enough POS that it was worth it. Time will tell if it was, but I'm glad we don't have military people doing this on the daily, the armed forces would go to $h!t pretty fast.
Smartest post I've seen from you
only to be short lived by this ignorant one.
Actually the president's directives are entirely relevant as far as active military's opposition to them goes. I posted the military regs requiring guys like him to oppose illegal directives.
He wasn't opposing Trump over his personal thoughts of the man or because he had a generic "awful" opinion of the president. He clearly said he opposed him for his illegal actions, which again, active military has the duty to.
Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled against Trump both for his violations of military protocols as well as his attempted shredding of our Constitution.
At this point, these aren't even opinions of the Major. These are well documented patterns of Trump directing the military to do illegal sh t. Patterns we have never seen before.
You're still conflating two separate duties.
I completely agree military members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders and not participate in illegal conduct. If the Major was ordered to do something unlawful (or was involved in carrying out an unlawful action) he had every right, heck oblication even, to refuse it and use the millitary's established reporting channels.
What I haven't seen is anything in those regs that says an active-duty officer fulfills that duty by publicly calling for the President's removal while serving (and in uniform on the Capitol's front steps). Those are two different things.
If you have a regulation that authorizes or requires active-duty officers to publicly advocate against the CINC as part of opposing unlawful orders, I'd genuinely like to read it. Otherwise, I think you're connecting two concepts that the regulations treat separately.
By your premise the ENTIRE military should stand down and go on strike...not just the one Major.
Yes. At this point I would agree that the military should no longer follow any directive by the president. Neither should Congress. Neither should the courts.
You're still conflating two separate duties.
I completely agree military members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders and not participate in illegal conduct. If the Major was ordered to do something unlawful (or was involved in carrying out an unlawful action) he had every right, heck oblication even, to refuse it and use the millitary's established reporting channels.
What I haven't seen is anything in those regs that says an active-duty officer fulfills that duty by publicly calling for the President's removal while serving (and in uniform on the Capitol's front steps). Those are two different things.
If you have a regulation that authorizes or requires active-duty officers to publicly advocate against the CINC as part of opposing unlawful orders, I'd genuinely like to read it. Otherwise, I think you're connecting two concepts that the regulations treat separately.
By your premise the ENTIRE military should stand down and go on strike...not just the one Major.
He is a compromised and corrupt president. Across all levels the laws, regulations, and protocols put in place specifically to stop men like him should be exercised, and he should be removed from office and held to account, including prisons time, for his unprecedented illegal actions and betrayal of our Constitution and country.
Also, he wasn't arrested for his opinion. He was arrested off base by Capitol police for where he demonstrated and because he allegedly refused lawful orders from the Capitol Police (again, likely as planned). Once he's back on base, though, he won't be apprehended for what he said, per se, but rather for saying it in uniform. However, if a service member commits an offense that violates both civilian law and the UCMJ, they can sometimes face both prosecution in civilian court, and court-martial.
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Imagine if every officer decided, "I personally believe the President is acting unconstitutionally, therefore I'll decide which directives to obey."
That's exactly what the United States has tried to avoid since its founding. Our military is subordinate to civilian authority, not to each officer's individual political judgment. They're not empowered to independently determine that a President is illegitimate and then publicly campaign for his removal while remaining on active duty. Seriously, Huey, play that out across every administration, man. Geebus.
If every officer were free to decide which presidents were constitutional enough to obey, we'd no longer have civilian control of the military...we'd have a military deciding for itself which elected leaders deserve its allegiance. Frack'n anarchy!
Honeslty, you should write your congressman regarding your concerns. I kid you not, I've written mine several times here in Texas. Not always the treponse I'd like, but I went on record saying it.
Once again these aren't personal calls. The courts at every federal level have ruled that Trump is repeatedly using the military in dangerous, unprecedented, and illegal ways.
Also my Congress members are all MAGA. I have called them many times. They ignore my warnings. Thank God two will be guaranteed to no longer be in office next year, our worst in the nation governor won't either, and corrupt bozos like Hinson will be gone as well.
That's not true. The courts ruled on specific cases and specific legal questions and the government won some of those cases too. You're describing a sweeping judicial consensus that simply doesn't exist, Huey. More importantly, though, none of those rulings answer the question I've been asking all along: where do they authorize an active-duty officer to publicly campaign for the President's removal while remaining on active duty?
Ya, I have a big nothing burger response from Ted Cruz's office after I wrote him regarding the Uvalde shooting.
The largest and most profound cases were against him. Trump tried using troops against California and Kos Angeles and the courts ruled what he did was illegal. Then Trump tried to use troops against Illinois and Chicago. And the Supreme Court ruled that illegal. And the courts just recently ruled his ban against transgender people illegal.
Now I will concede that the transgender directive, though illegal, didn't directly threaten Americans. But his use of troops in California and Illinois certainly had those undertones.
So given Trump's repeated attempts to use troops against Americans, and the courts shredding him for it and barring him from it, I think a very real case can be made that he's a rouge president that needs to be constantly monitored and safeguarded against.
ok. and what was the result? are the troops still there?
Either way, you're still answering a different question than the one I'm asking. The courts ruled on specific actions. If a court finds an order or deployment unlawful, then it shouldn't be carried out. We agree on that. So, again, are the troops still in those locations?
What I keep asking (and you haven't answered) is, where do those rulings authorize an active-duty officer to publicly campaign for the President's removal while remaining on active duty? Was this Major ordered to participate in the California or Illinois actions? Was he refusing an unlawful order? If not, I don't see how those court cases are relevant to his public political advocacy.
That's been my point from the beginning: refusing an unlawful order and publicly advocating for the President's removal are two different things.
I don't agree with the arrest but every military person knows the UCMJ regs while in uniform and the ramifications and the Major did, as well.