Democrats Release Video Calling for the US Military to Openly Defy Trump and Hegseth

29,171 Views | 455 Replies | Last: 8 days ago by El Gallo Blanco
aggieforester05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 9:28p, 11/20/25
AG
ETFan said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
They trolled Donald Trump like Donald Trump trolls their comrades.

That was not a troll.

It was stupid, if they meant it as a troll. It was a call for violence. Still protected speech under SCOTUS precedent in Brandenburg because it lacks the imminent element.

But a very poor choice by those lawmakers who chose to participate in that. No Speech and Debate Clause out there.

No it literally was not.

What the hell is going on?


The last ten years of insane leftist rhetoric and despicable behavior has consequences. Painting all conservatives as Fascists and Nazis while demonizing Trump as the second coming of Hitler has consequences. Creating massive amounts chaos, violence and destruction while treating 1/6 as uniquely destructive has consequences. Gas lighting the public with left wing propaganda posing as objective news has consequences. Demonizing white males and patriotic Americans has consequences.

Nobody including you believes that this video was an innocent reminder and not an insinuation that Trump's orders are illegal and that service members should ignore them at their own peril. Only an idiot would believe that after the last ten years of DBaggery from the Democrat party.

Do you expect them to make a video about bicycle helmet safety next and the timing of this video is just a coincidence?
Reply Quote
17
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggieforester05 • 9:38p, 11/20/25
AG
It's obvious from the rhetoric on the left that bicycle helmet safety requirements that were so prevalent about 20-30 years ago ultimately had the opposite effect.

Those of us who shunned participation trophies, helmets, safety vests, ear protection and such have grown thicker skin and common sense.
Reply Quote
6
2000AgPhD
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:18a, 11/21/25
Anyone in the military was already well aware of this, so it is simply more leftist agitprop.
Reply Quote
9
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 2000AgPhD • 6:26a, 11/21/25
AG
2000AgPhD said:
Anyone in the military was already well aware of this, so it is simply more leftist agitprop.

Many of us only slightly connected to the military know this was bullcrap

"We were just following orders" hasn't been a defense since Nuremberg
Reply Quote
5
shiftyandquick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CanyonAg77 • 7:25a, 11/21/25
CanyonAg77 said:
2000AgPhD said:
Anyone in the military was already well aware of this, so it is simply more leftist agitprop.

Many of us only slightly connected to the military know this was bullcrap

"We were just following orders" hasn't been a defense since Nuremberg


Instructive here about Nuremberg. 60 minutes.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BjzGWGgdC/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Reply Quote
fasthorse05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:32a, 11/21/25
IMO, this entire thing is likely a set-up for war crimes trials if Trump decides to kill, bomb, attack, any of the Dems good buddies in the cartels south of our border.

I'm sure it also applies to Trump wiping out the fentanyl and cocaine boats.

There's some forward thinking in the Goebbels, Lenin, Stalin camp here.
Reply Quote
2
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to shiftyandquick • 7:44a, 11/21/25
AG
shiftyandquick said:
The general in charge of the forces in the Southern Hemisphere stepped down when these boat attacks started.

Hmmm. One wonders why.


Probably the huge mangina he sported got in the way of common sense.
Reply Quote
10
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to richardag • 7:47a, 11/21/25
AG
The poster will not reply.

Probably disabled by the bashing.
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ETFan • 7:48a, 11/21/25
Troops shouldn't be getting "reminders" from seditionists who are merely attempting to derail the president. The seditionists should be in prison.
Reply Quote
14
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 8:02a, 11/21/25
AG
And investigation is being opened. If anything, to understand who was behind this, the money, likely Soros connections if not international influence.

The fact the left is trying so hard to play the "nothing to see here, business as usual, friendly reminder and all" tells you they both planned it and understood they were doing something nefarious.

"Hang them. George Washington would" is reflective as to the serious nature of their crimes and not a call to violence. Justice and its outcome are NOT violence.
Reply Quote
3
Hullabaloonatic
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17a, 11/21/25
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.
Reply Quote
5
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:38a, 11/21/25
AG
Yet not one lib can explain why Slotkin, former CIA, felt the need to put such a video together.

Trump has not issued any illegal orders. Hell, no one has made an actual claim of him doing so. Ever.

Who's behind the video, who paid to put it together, and what was the reason for it.

Very simple questions that they don't seem to even want to acknowledge the question much less provide the answers.
Reply Quote
11
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:45a, 11/21/25
AG
The implication is that it was necessary to make this reminder because there is a need to be wary of existing or imminent unlawful orders. That is also something that has not happened but this message implied there is reason for concern. It isn't really meant for the military, it is meant to alarm the general public, and create the perception that unlawful orders are being given by the president when the courts have almost universally backed wheat HEB has actually asked them to do with a couple of exceptions under review for appeal or deemed not worth of a challenge.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
4stringAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 8:57a, 11/21/25
AG
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.
Reply Quote
12
Hubert J. Farnsworth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 9:16a, 11/21/25
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.


Unlike you liberal clowns with the democrats, conservatives will actually call Trump out on here. He shouldn't have said what he said, but stop acting like what the democrats did was innocent.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 9:20a, 11/21/25
Quote:

What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous.

Sure it was. But it was #RESISTANCE, so you love it. Same people said Trump called for violence on J6. You are completely detached from reality.

No one is giving unlawful orders. The suggestion of such is undermining the Commander in Chief.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
Blackhorse83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 9:43a, 11/21/25
AG
flown-the-coop said:
And investigation is being opened. If anything, to understand who was behind this, the money, likely Soros connections if not international influence.

The fact the left is trying so hard to play the "nothing to see here, business as usual, friendly reminder and all" tells you they both planned it and understood they were doing something nefarious.

"Hang them. George Washington would" is reflective as to the serious nature of their crimes and not a call to violence. Justice and its outcome are NOT violence.

I had not heard that but it should publicly announced that the 6 elected officials are being "interviewed" in an effort to substantiate their inuendo/claims. That won't go well for them.
Scouts Out
Reply Quote
3
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 9:49a, 11/21/25
AG
Did Trump call them out by name?

All I see is seditious behavior...
Reply Quote
5
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 9:52a, 11/21/25
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
The implication is that it was necessary to make this reminder because there is a need to be wary of existing or imminent unlawful orders. That is also something that has not happened but this message implied there is reason for concern. It isn't really meant for the military, it is meant to alarm the general public, and create the perception that unlawful orders are being given by the president when the courts have almost universally backed wheat HEB has actually asked them to do with a couple of exceptions under review for appeal or deemed not worth of a challenge.


This wasn't about anything said to date, it's about what they know is coming.
Reply Quote
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 9:59a, 11/21/25
AG
FTAG 2000 said:
MouthBQ98 said:
The implication is that it was necessary to make this reminder because there is a need to be wary of existing or imminent unlawful orders. That is also something that has not happened but this message implied there is reason for concern. It isn't really meant for the military, it is meant to alarm the general public, and create the perception that unlawful orders are being given by the president when the courts have almost universally backed wheat HEB has actually asked them to do with a couple of exceptions under review for appeal or deemed not worth of a challenge.


This wasn't about anything said to date, it's about what they know is coming.


No please

What is coming?
Reply Quote
2
pdc093
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 10:33a, 11/21/25
'This wasn't about anything said to date, it's about what they know is coming'.....

What is coming?
Reply Quote
2
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 10:35a, 11/21/25
FTAG 2000 said:
MouthBQ98 said:
The implication is that it was necessary to make this reminder because there is a need to be wary of existing or imminent unlawful orders. That is also something that has not happened but this message implied there is reason for concern. It isn't really meant for the military, it is meant to alarm the general public, and create the perception that unlawful orders are being given by the president when the courts have almost universally backed wheat HEB has actually asked them to do with a couple of exceptions under review for appeal or deemed not worth of a challenge.


This wasn't about anything said to date, it's about what they know is coming.

Mark this post
Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 10:37a, 11/21/25
FTAG 2000 said:
MouthBQ98 said:
The implication is that it was necessary to make this reminder because there is a need to be wary of existing or imminent unlawful orders. That is also something that has not happened but this message implied there is reason for concern. It isn't really meant for the military, it is meant to alarm the general public, and create the perception that unlawful orders are being given by the president when the courts have almost universally backed wheat HEB has actually asked them to do with a couple of exceptions under review for appeal or deemed not worth of a challenge.


This wasn't about anything said to date, it's about what they know is coming.

What's that? Is he going to run off with the nuclear football? Push the red button? Order someone to do both? Jerk the wheel of The Beast from the backseat?
Reply Quote
1
13B
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 10:48a, 11/21/25
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

President Trump isn't begging for violence, he is merely reminding everyone of the oaths they took and that if there is seditious behavior then it is punishable by death and quotes an example from the past. See, I can spin it just like you are attempting to do.
Reply Quote
4
Hullabaloonatic
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobbranco • 10:49a, 11/21/25
bobbranco said:
Did Trump call them out by name?

All I see is seditious behavior...

....He quote 'truthed' (i still can't believe the dumb reality we live in where the President is 'truthing' online) the Washington Examiner article linking the video explicitly calling them traitors:


And then the very next 'truth':


It's extremely clear that he thinks they should be put to death.
Reply Quote
Hullabaloonatic
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 13B • 10:52a, 11/21/25
13B said:
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

President Trump isn't begging for violence, he is merely reminding everyone of the oaths they took and that if there is seditious behavior then it is punishable by death and quotes an example from the past. See, I can spin it just like you are attempting to do.

Give me a ****ing break. He called them seditious traitors that should be punished by death and then re-truthed a guy who said they should be hung.

Don't try to gaslight me or anyone else on this non sense. The POTUS is explicitly calling for the execution of elected leaders.
Reply Quote
Hullabaloonatic
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4stringAg • 10:53a, 11/21/25
4stringAg said:
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.

Which other President has called for the death of elected officials?
Reply Quote
Blackhorse83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:57a, 11/21/25
AG
Because of democrat lawlessness we are already in a soft civil war. Through their rhetoric, states and municipalities have been nullifying federal law. We are heading for a nullification crisis worse than 1832 when South Carolina declared Federal tariffs null and void. The crisis re-ignited the debate between states' rights and federal authority. There was compromise and the crisis was averted. 29 years later the War between the States broke out. I don't think it will take 29 years before this comes to a head.
Scouts Out
Reply Quote
6
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:58a, 11/21/25
AG
So its okay for Dems to warn troops they have a choice of whether to obey orders, but...

its not okay for Trump to warn Dems what seditious behavior is and what the consequences are.

Makes good liberal sense.

Trump did not call for the execution of anyone. He called out seditious behavior and the consequences.'

Based on additional information that is to come about who is behind this and why they did this, it is very possible the could face severe and perhaps the ultimate consequence.

I would have no issue with these traitors being investigated, judged, found guilty and punished. What they have done is fundamentally at odds with their oaths of office and their responsibility as elected representatives.

They crossed a line.
Reply Quote
7
AgGrad99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:00a, 11/21/25
AG

Quote:
All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders.

What does that have to do with anything? They weren't illegal orders. Don't alter reality to fit your argument.


Discuss your opinion of them openly encouraging a rebellion against Legal orders.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 11:01a, 11/21/25
AG
Hullabaloonatic said:
4stringAg said:
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.

Which other President has called for the death of elected officials?

Biden.

Quote:
"I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump. I'm absolutely certain I'm the best person to be able to do that. So, we're done talking about the debate, it's time to put Trump in a bullseye,"

5 days later was Butler, PA assassination attempt.

Perhaps you missed that?
Reply Quote
7
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 11:05a, 11/21/25
Hullabaloonatic said:
bobbranco said:
Did Trump call them out by name?

All I see is seditious behavior...

....He quote 'truthed' (i still can't believe the dumb reality we live in where the President is 'truthing' online) the Washington Examiner article linking the video explicitly calling them traitors:


And then the very next 'truth':


It's extremely clear that he thinks they should be put to death.



Love my King!!!!!!
Reply Quote
3
Blackhorse83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 11:08a, 11/21/25
AG
Hullabaloonatic said:
4stringAg said:
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.

Which other President has called for the death of elected officials?

Informing someone of the possible consequences of their actions is not calling for the death of elected officials. It is important for Trump to counter the 6 democrats narrative so the uninformed have the opportunity to understand the gravity of what the 6 democrats are implying. Those of us who served are already well aware of what are legal and illegal orders. The general public is not.
Scouts Out
Reply Quote
5
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 11:12a, 11/21/25
Hullabaloonatic said:
4stringAg said:
Hullabaloonatic said:
Scrolled through 6 pages and was shocked to find that no one actually provided links to what Trump 'truthed.'




What the Democratic VETS said was neither seditious or traitorous. All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command. Accusing these individuals of being TRAITORS and declaring their actions punishable by death is INSANE.

Trump is begging for someone to enact violence on these people. I feel like im taking crazy pills reading through TexAgs justify this.

Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.

Which other President has called for the death of elected officials?



Burr - while Vice President - called for a duel to the death against Hamilton, who was Treasury Sec at the time. Burr then shot and killed Hamilton while Burr was VP.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hullabaloonatic • 11:12a, 11/21/25
Quote:
Quote:
Now you have a little taste of how Republicans and Trump supporters have felt for the last 10 years with the way your party's ongoing violent rhetoric and actual violence has flowed. Until you show a concern for that, spare us your pearl clutching over this.

Which other President has called for the death of elected officials?

Which party has already shot multiple people on the other side, to include THIS President?
Reply Quote
8
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.