Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 06/06/25

Like frogs in a pot

At least you no longer use the now tired and hilariously overused “but but checks and balances” line

Yes let’s wait and see how massive gun ownership protects against government tyranny

Fast becoming the top meme of 2025. I suppose this gives the democrats some hope, as meme's seem to be the only thing 50% of the US electorate can actually understand.

Trump does not seem to have thought of his Sec Defence coordinating with the Gov of California ref NG units there-in. Cooperation with Gov Newsom would probably be better if Trump behaved like a political adult and stop referring, as he did in his statement on the call-up of the NG, to Newsom as Gov Newscum, sidestepping the Gov from the start.

True enough, the Churchills were mounted on cement plinths in the Curragh. DF didn't have control of the purse. The Scorpions were nice to look at, when they were in service. Now I'll return to the thing of importance, the savvy-ness of the man sitting in the White House.

Wait until it dawns on some that this means troops could have been used to squash January 6th riot

If Biden did anything even remotely this serious you would have every republican and gun nut screaming murder from top of every building, I remember as far back as Obama Fox News theorising how terrible it be if troops are used against neonazi rioters and “protestors” with tiki torches and swastikas

but those checks and balances will sort it all out

Speaking as a German, that is an extremely familiar and, quite frankly, depressing line of logic. A law, or order, might be following the letter of the law whilst still violating every principle a modern liberal democracy supposedly holds sacred. The United States was built on the principle that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." I'm sure you're familiar with the document I just quoted there. These principles, these rights, are so fundamental to modern society, so fundamental to our understanding of human rights that to ignore or sidestep them by pointing out the supposed lawfulness of any order or decree that might violate them amounts to a dereliction of duty not on an organisational, but on a basic human level.

In my eyes, it is the duty of every agent of government in a modern liberal democracy, whether they are civil servants or a member of the uniformed services, to disobey instructions or orders that go against the basic principles of the nation they're serving, regardless of whether they are "legal" or not. The duty to one's conscience must always outweigh respect for the chain of command because in the wrong hands, that chain can very quickly become a noose. That is something my grandfather's generation learned the hard way, and it is the reason why, post-1945 and especially post-Nuremberg 1946 and post-Frankfurt 1963, they made sure to impress on every following generation, on every member of the Bundeswehr this duty to one's conscience. It is why the principle of "Innere Führung" is so strong in the German armed forces and why, ironically, some of the most liberal individuals I've ever met were either reservists or serving members of the Bundeswehr. It is also my personal exposure to my grandfather's generation (although not my paternal grandfather himself, he passed away before I was born), their anguish and trauma, why I feel so strongly about this. I may have been born in 1981, but there were still a lot of veterans and survivors around when I grew up!

I'm aware that the US Armed Forces, and indeed US society as a whole, have never had to face a situation before where the head of state and Commander-in-Chief has moved to, either covertly or overtly, undermine the rule of law to the degree that Germany faced post-1933. As a result, it is no surprise that there's no real institutional awareness about the possibility, or risk, of such an eventuality, and as such an over reliance on the existing checks and balances. I also know, partially from my own personal experience as a US military contractor in Germany, that the vast majority of people serving in the US Armed Forces are good people.

But here's the thing: So was a young man called Herbert Milde when he joined the Weimar-era Reichswehr in 1927. So was a young man called Helmut Schmidt when he was drafted into the Wehrmacht in 1937. Neither of them were ideologically aligned with the nazis, or in any way immoral. Both were good people. Indeed, Helmut Schmidt would become one of post-war Germany's most respected political leaders, not to mention the first west German politician to visit Auschwitz. His speech at the memorial there is in my eyes one of the most important speeches made by any German leader. Incidentally, the other man I mentioned would go on to be my grandfather, as well as a colleague and friend of Helmut Schmidt in 1960s Hamburg. Good people can be lead to participate in horrible events, which is why it is so important that there is not just a robust system of checks and balances in place, but also a very clear understanding of every soldier's, sailor's, airman's, civil servant's and other government agent's duty and responsibility to one's conscience and to the dignity and rights of every human being.

I know from your posts here and in other subforums here that you are an active duty officer in the US Army. As such, I understand that you're constrained in what you can write here, both by standing orders and the UCMJ, but also by basic professional prudence. And I'll be honest, I hope you turn out to be right, that all of this blows over and ends, to quote a certain US president with Irish roots, with a vindication of right, rather than a victory of might. But there's no guarantee that this is going to happen, and given the power of the US Armed Forces, it is important for the members of these forces to be aware of their responsibilities as humans and citizens, and when the time comes, act according to these responsibilities, rather than the mere letter of the law. Herbert Milde and Helmut Schmidt did not have the advantage of having a warning printed out in the history books. You and your comrades in arms do.

Absolutely wonderful post, thanks for that Thomil.

he has no skills because I don’t like him is hardly an argument.

You don’t become the richest person in the world without some business acumen.

More protests planned today it seems, this is wild stuff.

Nail on **** head, bravo 👏

He was already rich when he was born. All he did was buy some things with those riches. You don't need any skill for that.

Elon Musk is like a gamer who has all the cheats activated.

Should be able to protest in any civilised state.

Ref what Manic_Moran wrote, there's a very thin line between objecting to an order which one has received and refusing or disobeying an order. It's a specific official military legal position that one can object to the legality of an order after the fact to a higher authority AND AFTER one has obeyed the order, NOT BEFORE.

I can understand that he, as a serving officer, has to comply with military law, even if it makes it seem like he's dancing on the head of a pin. The options are rather limited for precipitate actions: refusal or resignation.

Whatever your feelings about Trump, he's the democratically elected president of the USA.

Soldiers don't get to choose whether to obey an order because they like someone or not. They obey if it's a lawfully given one.

I assume you'd be fine if they decided not to follow orders because their president was coloured or female?