this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
536 points (99.1% liked)

politics

31093 readers
2560 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pageflight@piefed.social 117 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Newsweek has an image, credited to YouTube/Jessica Denson:

Impeach, Convict, Remove

There's a Spotfund by "DOOR LLC", I'm not familiar with the platform or the sponsor.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Idk anything about DOOR LLC, but one must admire a soldier actually committing to his oath.

One must also hope that if this one soldier is standing up to make this statement, that there's thousands more who share the sentiment too, and he haven't heard from them yet.

With any luck, this'll become a trend.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 months ago

Veterans have been speaking out this whole time. The media probably tries to keep that quiet, and alternative streams of information probably don't focus much on what vets say, unless they're specifically vet-focused in which case most people in leftist spaces probably don't hear about them. But vets have been speaking up all along.

It's more rare for someone active duty, because not only are they prohibited by the UCMJ from speaking against the President, VP, or SecDef (since they're in the chain of command), but also it's prohibited to take part in any political activity in uniform. The reasoning is basically that anyone in uniform is a representative of the military itself, and therefore not supposed to take part in partisan activities or express a political opinion in the capacity of being a service member.

Active duty can go to protests and do all that, but they're supposed to do so in civilian attire and not bring attention to their military status.

So my thoughts are a lot of servicemembers are opposed to what's happening, but even if they're protesting they're keeping quiet about their military status. Also to avoid bringing attention to themselves, cause if their chain of command finds out they can make their lives hell even without hitting them with the book.

So what this guy is doing is ballsy. He could very easily be stripped of rank, lose his commission, or be sent to the brig. Honestly the latter is most likely because the other two would take an act of congress since he's an officer, but with this congress I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

[–] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

That man is going to be breaking rocks. I hope, instead of something worse; as didn't the current administration purge military leadership to install loyalists?

Fuck yeah its a great photo though.

§934. Art. 134. General article

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Prob if he was enlisted, officers typically get the kids gloves. My money would be on forced retirement, if they really want to make an example of him they might dismiss him after being court marshalled.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I doubt it, at least not for very long. He may get convicted, especially if it's a military court, but the next Democratic president will pardon him.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago

Yupp only gotta engage in back breaking grueling labor at a military prison camp for 3 more years or so!

[–] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I hope he is pardoned.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That man is going to be breaking rocks.

He's going to be doing the Joe Rogan circuit for a month. He'll have a dozen book deals by January.

I guarantee his actual politics is dogshit. Willing to bet he's going to be running for Congress on the "America didn't bomb Iran hard enough" inside the next election cycle.

[–] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Maybe after. The UCMJ is no joke.

[–] Sheppa@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

His job is to kill innocent people, so you can’t expect much from him.