705
Trump Floats the Idea of Executing Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
705 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1950 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
never thought i'd see someone ignore a problem with trump because it involves someone that had worked for the government during the trump administration. if that was your best example, something he may not even had realized was fully going on at the time, than wow. sure, let trump get away with something because you hate trump. the damn logical inconsistency is astounding. you hate him so much (which is fine, i think he's terrible too and should be in jail) that you've wrapped around and are now accidentally and implicitly defending him. its like you had a buffer overflow error.
He does raise a good point though. Milley is less innocent bystander than just the latest Trump enabler that Trump has decided to sacrifice for no doubt failing some kind of perceived loyalty test. It's not logically inconsistent that they both suck, and it's probably worth reminding people that just because he's being attacked by Trump doesn't make him a good guy. All that said though, this is very blatantly stochastic terrorism on Trumps part.
I mean, if that was the best example, all you have is someone doing their job. It's like complaining about a secret service agent protecting trump.
I think the argument in this case is that he had a duty to either refuse to clear the protestors who were exercising their rights just to accommodate a last minute whim of Trump, or else a duty to step in when the capital police started using excessive force. That said, it is a somewhat weak argument. Generally though it's good to be somewhat critical of anyone that was in Trumps orbit at the time because there was a LOT of shady stuff going on at the time and it's not really clear who was or wasn't involved in any particular incident. Ultimately I still come back to what I said previously, just because Trump attacks someone, that doesn't mean they're a good person.