this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
550 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19149 readers
3578 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] agent_flounder 124 points 1 year ago (2 children)

An annual Pentagon report on extremism within the ranks reveals that 78 service members were suspected of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government and another 44 were suspected of engaging or supporting terrorism.

I wonder how many they don't know about?

[–] SuckMyWang 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wonder how many are liberal and how many are conservative? I’d like to see the numbers when trump was in power also. If you’re wondering why I think any would be liberal at the moment with a liberal government it’s because some people are absolute idiots and it’s interesting when it happens

[–] Kittengineer 87 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because we know how well Trump talked about and regarded the troops.

Are these fools too stupid to look at the latest bills supporting vets and how republicans voted?

It’s mind blowing how republicans are able to convince people to vote against their own self interests so voraciously.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I have a good friend that works with these nut cases daily.

I call them nut cases because about 70% of them keep taking about how they need to violate their oath to the US Constitution to (in their exclusive opinion) "protect the country for the deep state".

The US government is way too stupid to either develop a "deep state" or keep it secret.

Conspiracy theories are rampant in the US military.

[–] Aleric 36 points 1 year ago

I think it's a lack of critical thinking skills. They never stop to really analyze why things are the way they are. They just realize they don't know, so they seek easy answers on the Internet or just start piecing convenient, if unrelated or nonsensical, points forget until it forms a loosely cohesive theory.

[–] joel_feila 8 points 1 year ago

Well the deep state originally ment political momentum. Things deeply rooted into usa policies. Not a secret cabal government.

[–] banneryear1868 6 points 1 year ago

"Deep state" is like the administrative apparatus and institutions of government. In reality it's pretty boring, but people in the US are generally losing trust in these institutions because there is a degrading of the social contract people are expecting under this system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Soo.... file this under mutiny or treason then? Call it what it is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Treason is a very specific crime, defined in the US Constitution. Very few acts qualify, and far fewer than its usage in common English. Most people (from a legal standpoint) mean insurrection.

The article does mention some of their plans as terrorism as well, which is an apt description

[–] FlyingSquid 56 points 1 year ago (23 children)
[–] bassomitron 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I mean, 183 out of 1.4+ million is pretty small, even if you account for the ones they don't know about.

[–] CosmicTurtle 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem isn't the small percentage. The problem is that if these people are in the right places, they can cause a lot of damage.

Bare in mind that the 2020 election was saved when a handful of people refused to follow Trump into fascism.

[–] bassomitron 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, but again I think you're underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It'd take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US's military. You also have to consider the military isn't just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.

Jan 6th wasn't even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.

I'm not saying this particular report isn't concerning, I'm just saying it isn't cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military's allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] TallonMetroid 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there's only so few cases. Back when I was still Chair Force, pretty much all the TVs in common areas would be blaring nothing but FOX News constantly,

[–] AquaTofana 17 points 1 year ago

Fortunately it's changed a ton since I've been in, and for the better. While we still have a lot of work to do, I came in when DADT was still a thing for context. I've been LOVING the direction we've been heading, and hope it keeps on trucking even when I'm done.

That being said, my last duty station was filled with a bunch of retiree civilians who ADORED Fox News. It was fucking INFURIATING to listen to that shit (and them bitching about politics) all day. It sucks too thinking of the impact that they could be having on all the younger Airmen if they're still around.

[–] grue 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Quite frankly, I'm alarmed at how many must be going unreported, especially when you consider that the most likely reason for them not to be reported would be if the traitorous sentiments were conveyed to a like-minded audience.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

good, we identify the traitors and kick their dumb asses out

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

You mean lock them up, then kick them out.

[–] DigitalTraveler42 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is exactly why Tommy Tuberville has been throwing a shit fit about military promotions, because I guess somebody has to protect the racist fascist traitors in our ranks. /s

[–] grue 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tommy Tuberville has been stalling military promotions in furtherance of Project 2025. It's not just a "shit fit;" it's an affirmatively traitorous act in and of itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kerrigan778 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like very solid grounds for a discharge, possibly a dishonorable one. A clear violation of oath.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] teamevil 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Isn't treason a punishable offence?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

From the UCMJ:

Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 4 points 1 year ago

Well now it's just a requirement to be MAGA

[–] fluxion 3 points 1 year ago
[–] arensb 14 points 1 year ago

From the article, I get the impression that the number in the headline is a severe undercount, because a lot of people in charge of running anti-domestic-terrorism programs in the military don't see the value in them, so they either don't see the problem in their ranks, or turn a blind eye to it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Well, it's a good thing we have a Fort Leavenworth to stick them in.

[–] someguy3 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's probably tens of thousands that want to and would go along. All in the name of a charlatan.

[–] just_another_person 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem is commanding officers issuing orders. They need to root them out.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 4 points 1 year ago

"Thank you for your service"

[–] cosmicrookie 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do they all wear tan pants?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recapitated 2 points 1 year ago

Support the troops

load more comments
view more: next ›