Is it overt political preference once he's actually inaugurated as the CIC?

I interpret overt preference to be something during election time, when one has not been elected yet, troops showing support for one candidate over another.

Now that he's president, period the end, this looks like troops supporting their CIC. I can see where it may be deemed a bit excessive or even inappropriate, but I don't know that the 'overt political preference' thing makes much sense.

It is outside the protocol of decorum, as well as bearing and behavior.

It was the "Campaign" sign, and such, does send a certain message.

The military is about regulation and standards.

As well as may be deveiation from such, that is up to unit commanders, or higher commands.

As much as I like it, it was improper to do it and a simple verbal order to remove and verbal reprimand is all that need be done.

I used to let my people solve their problems at the lowest level, but it had to be balanced with the level of "violation" as well as "damage".



So, short military response is;

"Knock it off and don't do it again."

Typically, that would be the end of it, from all sides.

You want to support and honor the President?

Fly this.

^^^^^

Got to love presidential historical facts!

quote:

Originally posted by jcat:
Is it overt political preference once he's actually inaugurated as the CIC?

I interpret overt preference to be something during election time, when one has not been elected yet, troops showing support for one candidate over another.

Now that he's president, period the end, this looks like troops supporting their CIC. I can see where it may be deemed a bit excessive or even inappropriate, but I don't know that the 'overt political preference' thing makes much sense.

The word uniform is pretty self explanatory, no? Not that I'm a big fan of mindless adherence to banal and often nonsensical rules, personally, but it's the military way, through and through. Nothing to interpret.

Ugh, Why did Trump have to bring up the ratings of the celebrity apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast?

He needs to cut that shit out.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by jcat:
Is it overt political preference once he's actually inaugurated as the CIC?

I interpret overt preference to be something during election time, when one has not been elected yet, troops showing support for one candidate over another.

Now that he's president, period the end, this looks like troops supporting their CIC. I can see where it may be deemed a bit excessive or even inappropriate, but I don't know that the 'overt political preference' thing makes much sense.

The word uniform is pretty self explanatory, no? Not that I'm a big fan of mindless adherence to banal and often nonsensical rules, personally, but it's the military way, through and through. Nothing to interpret.

I get it, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the men also getting chastised for flying the stars and bars the way things seem to have gone in the .mil as of late.

Mine was just a genuine question of whether or not overt political preference applied in this case. I guess so. But I do definitely understand the idea of uniform code and conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Do these idiots realize that in order to have military coup you'd need a good portion of the military to decide that safe spaces, entitlement, no soldiers, political correctness, open borders, a complete ban on firearm ownership, and no American jobs is the best direction for our country.

I just don't see that happening. Then again, she is a comedian.

75%+ of the military vote. 75%+ of the gun owner vote. 75%+ of the police vote.

Yeaaaaahhh.....about that civil war thing.....are ya sure, cupcake? Cuz if you play that out even a little bit, cupcake, it don't look all roses for your side.

Unless you're considering challenging the Iraqi Republican Guard for the record on "mother of all surrenders" I might step back and take another look at the plan.

If it was me. Jus sayin.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Ugh, Why did Trump have to bring up the ratings of the celebrity apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast?

He needs to cut that shit out.

I saw it and I don't think it was inapprorpriate at all. He had just been introduced by Mark Burnett and was giving his good friend (and producer of Celebrity Apprentice) a gentle ribbing. Of course, that's not how the media is reporting it.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Ugh, Why did Trump have to bring up the ratings of the celebrity apprentice at the National Prayer Breakfast?

He needs to cut that shit out.

I saw it and I don't think it was inapprorpriate at all. He had just been introduced by Mark Burnett and was giving his good friend (and producer of Celebrity Apprentice) a gentle ribbing. Of course, that's not how the media is reporting it.

I just heard the snippet on the radio. Appropriate or not, it adds fuel to people's arguements that he's not a serious president.

People who do not think he is a serious president have not been paying attention to what he has been doing; with his cabinet appointments, his judicial appointment, or his executive orders. In other words, those people are clueless anyway.

If no one provides them fuel, such people will rip off their clothing and burn that.

^^^

one would hope they take a short cut and not remove the clothing before they light it on fire...

While I wasn't in favor of the creation of a whole new Cabinet department (Homeland Security), I have to say that since it is here, The Donald could not have picked anyone better to run it than General Kelly. Holy cow I'm impressed with this guy.

I look back on the dingbat ex-Governor of PA and Butch Napolitano and think, wow, we've finally got someone fit for the job.

They keep this up and we may get to the bottom of the birther story

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:

Who?

She voiced a main character in "Wreck It Ralph" and had a secondary role in a Star Trek Voyager episode. That's about the only things she ever did of note. She's another D-list actor trying to remain relevant. . .

I first heard of her when someone forwarded a link to a video she did to break up with Jimmy Kimmel. It was deeply wrong, but quite funny. Kimmel's response video was even more wrong and in some ways funnier. I wasn't aware of anything else she had done and couldn't care less.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Isn't advocating the overthrow of the US government illegal? And WHY isn't the Trump administration BLASTING Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and Pelosi for not condemning such speech? Say flat out if they do not condem it they support it. Make them give some answer.

I thought it was. I can see the case for having her arrested and prosecuted for sedition or whatever the appropriate statute is. (I can also see a case for ignoring her.). I cannot see a case for giving any oxygen to the leftist scumbags listed above. I would not acknowledge them, much less ask them to do something, but that's just me.

For anyone who'd like to see the libtard beeotch getting punched in the face.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Isn't advocating the overthrow of the US government illegal? And WHY isn't the Trump administration BLASTING Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and Pelosi for not condemning such speech? Say flat out if they do not condem it they support it. Make them give some answer.

I thought it was. I can see the case for having her arrested and prosecuted for sedition or whatever the appropriate statute is. (I can also see a case for ignoring her.). I cannot see a case for giving any oxygen to the leftist scumbags listed above. I would not acknowledge them, much less ask them to do something, but that's just me.

No (sedition).

quote:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States,[4] Abrams v. United States,[5] Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States.[6]

I've bolded the important part, which - apparently - these recent cases don't rise to that level, but I'm no expert.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Isn't advocating the overthrow of the US government illegal? And WHY isn't the Trump administration BLASTING Obama, Hillary, Schumer, and Pelosi for not condemning such speech? Say flat out if they do not condem it they support it. Make them give some answer.

I thought it was. I can see the case for having her arrested and prosecuted for sedition or whatever the appropriate statute is. (I can also see a case for ignoring her.). I cannot see a case for giving any oxygen to the leftist scumbags listed above. I would not acknowledge them, much less ask them to do something, but that's just me.

No (sedition).

quote:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States,[4] Abrams v. United States,[5] Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States.[6]

I've bolded the important part, which - apparently - these recent cases don't rise to that level, but I'm no expert.

Sounds like ignore it is.