Dangerous stuff--open letter from former generals and admirals questioning the election

Bowlmania

All-Big Ten
Sep 23, 2016
3,993
8,798
113

I don't understand the world anymore.
My favorite part:
"In the letter, the signatories, many of whom have been out of active service for decades, also addressed concerns over Biden's health. 'The mental and physical condition of the Commander-in-Chief cannot be ignored . . . '" So they were okay with the mental and physical condition of the guy Biden beat? Effing amazing.
 

ButHerEmails

Senior
Sep 28, 2019
2,078
1,987
113
My favorite part:
"In the letter, the signatories, many of whom have been out of active service for decades, also addressed concerns over Biden's health. 'The mental and physical condition of the Commander-in-Chief cannot be ignored . . . '" So they were okay with the mental and physical condition of the guy Biden beat? Effing amazing.
Hmmm, I wonder if this will get play on Fox.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: outside shooter

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
9,093
10,366
113
I guess this is the "deep state" we were warned about...
Couple of things:
  1. Was this an issue when they did this to Trump? https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/10/18/military-brass-decry-trump-s-sexism
  2. I’ve never heard of any of these guys. Like zero
  3. The plurality of these are USAF and I would bet most of them are military intel officers. Intel officers are the desk jockey ass clowns that don’t set foot into battle and are almost universally conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
Couple of things:
  1. Was this an issue when they did this to Trump? https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/10/18/military-brass-decry-trump-s-sexism
  2. I’ve never heard of any of these guys. Like zero
  3. The plurality of these are USAF and I would bet most of them are military intel officers. USAF flag and Intel officers are the desk jockey ass clowns that don’t set foot into battle.
I hoped it was clear I was joking. I am not shocked a bunch of old guys hate something. Getting a 120 to hate the sun coming up would be easy.

Unless all 120 are Jasons, but Trump defunded the Jasons so I don't think they have loyalties to him. That group is as close as it gets to deep state and even they aren't deep state though I suspect our Q friends think so
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113

I don't understand the world anymore.
I don’t understand the danger. We can’t limit the first amendment because somebody states an untruth or a conspiracy theory. Much more dangerous was “Jim crow on steroids” which had real world negative consequences for real people. But I wouldn’t suggest the President or his sycophants be prevented from saying that. We respond to untruth with more speech, not limiting speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
Couple of things:
  1. Was this an issue when they did this to Trump? https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/10/18/military-brass-decry-trump-s-sexism
  2. I’ve never heard of any of these guys. Like zero
  3. The plurality of these are USAF and I would bet most of them are military intel officers. Intel officers are the desk jockey ass clowns that don’t set foot into battle and are almost universally conspiracy theorists.
Many “retired intelligence professionals” Wrote an open letter that it looked to them like Hunter Biden’s lap top was a Russian operation. The intelligence professionals said they had no evidence of such. Biden morphed that into saying his son’s laptop story was a Russian operation and Chris Wallace let him get away with that lie. That lie helped Biden get elected because the social and public media shut down the story. That lie had real world consequences, yet I wouldn’t want to live in a place where the authorities get to dictate what is or is not a lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,682
2,427
113
It says that their website says "They pledge to support and defend the constitution (apparently not since they are attacking a fair election) against all enemies foreign and domestic". Did they comment about Trump's sedition or his minions attacking the capital?
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
It says that their website says "They pledge to support and defend the constitution (apparently not since they are attacking a fair election) against all enemies foreign and domestic". Did they comment about Trump's sedition or his minions attacking the capital?
We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is something unconstitutional, undemocratic, or untoward about attacking or questioning elections. The ability to do that is the sign of a healthy and robust democracy. Limiting that puts us in North Korean territory.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,700
7,708
113
We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is something unconstitutional, undemocratic, or untoward about attacking or questioning elections. The ability to do that is the sign of a healthy and robust democracy. Limiting that puts us in North Korean territory.
Agreed - if it were close. Here it’s absurd.
 

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
9,093
10,366
113
Many “retired intelligence professionals” Wrote an open letter that it looked to them like Hunter Biden’s lap top was a Russian operation. The intelligence professionals said they had no evidence of such. Biden morphed that into saying his son’s laptop story was a Russian operation and Chris Wallace let him get away with that lie. That lie helped Biden get elected because the social and public media shut down the story. That lie had real world consequences, yet I wouldn’t want to live in a place where the authorities get to dictate what is or is not a lie.
How can I say this with tact: at a 100% positive rate, every intelligence officer with whom I dealt was not qualified to inform and brief a freshly-minted second lieutenant let alone generals. They are all conspiracy nut jobs that don’t understand statistics and are full of hunches.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is something unconstitutional, undemocratic, or untoward about attacking or questioning elections. The ability to do that is the sign of a healthy and robust democracy. Limiting that puts us in North Korean territory.

We also should disabuse ourselves of believing every damn thing posted on the internet.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
You've gone full on nutcase.
That depends if he is defending the right to ask legit questions or make stuff up.

People may have a right to make up stuff, but they should be smart enough not to. Which is where cancel culture can do good, people who just flat out make up conspiracies can be cancelled.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
22,359
20,630
113
That depends if he is defending the right to ask legit questions or make stuff up.

People may have a right to make up stuff, but they should be smart enough not to. Which is where cancel culture can do good, people who just flat out make up conspiracies can be cancelled.
He equated the insurgent attack on the Capital with contesting an election. Although he will deny it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
9,093
10,366
113
That depends if he is defending the right to ask legit questions or make stuff up.

People may have a right to make up stuff, but they should be smart enough not to. Which is where cancel culture can do good, people who just flat out make up conspiracies can be cancelled.
Yeah in theory. But that’s not who’s being canceled. Ask Andrew Yang... he’s in the chute.
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
7,688
4,908
113
  1. The plurality of these are USAF and I would bet most of them are military intel officers. Intel officers are the desk jockey ass clowns that don’t set foot into battle and are almost universally conspiracy theorists.

Loved this post for the desk jockey ass clowns
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
Yeah in theory. But that’s not who’s being canceled. Ask Andrew Yang... he’s in the chute.
Where I argue with people are the blanket statements, cancel culture/CRT is bad/evil. They both can be done well. In fact cancel culture has been around for a long time. Ask Jane Fonda.

I have no doubt both can be and are abused. Just as free speech is abused to lie about elections being stolen.
 

Harry Hondo

All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Nov 24, 2015
4,094
3,923
113
We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is something unconstitutional, undemocratic, or untoward about attacking or questioning elections. The ability to do that is the sign of a healthy and robust democracy. Limiting that puts us in North Korean territory.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, questioning the integrity of the election was not remotely close to what we had after the 2020 election. What we had was one man’s assertions of widespread voter fraud, when not a shred of evidence was found. We then had a large group of powerful political enablers, who continued to perpetuate these assertions. This has led to a further disruption in the belief we have a stable functioning democracy, with 70% of one party believing our current President is not legitimate.

Again, I’m all for questioning elections, I’m just not for lying and attempting to overturn a legitimate election. This is where the undemocratic and unconstitutional part comes in.
 

BradStevens

Benchwarmer
Silver Member
Mar 16, 2021
259
356
63
I don’t understand the danger. We can’t limit the first amendment because somebody states an untruth or a conspiracy theory. Much more dangerous was “Jim crow on steroids” which had real world negative consequences for real people. But I wouldn’t suggest the President or his sycophants be prevented from saying that. We respond to untruth with more speech, not limiting speech.
The danger (not illegality, not unconstitutionality) is in the notion that the military (not the retired ones) believe an unproven allegation about a stolen election and they might move to "protect" us from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" by overthrowing who they believe is not the truly elected President. Certain norms are important, but may not be codified in law--that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when they are violated.

I agree with you that we should not limit these people's First Amendment rights, and that those rights allow you to have false opinions. I also agree with you that hyperbole from the President on racial issues is incredibly destructive and divisive. BOTH those statements and these statements can be dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
19,462
5,492
113
I wholeheartedly agree. However, questioning the integrity of the election was not remotely close to what we had after the 2020 election. What we had was one man’s assertions of widespread voter fraud, when not a shred of evidence was found. We then had a large group of powerful political enablers, who continued to perpetuate these assertions. This has led to a further disruption in the belief we have a stable functioning democracy, with 70% of one party believing our current President is not legitimate.

Again, I’m all for questioning elections, I’m just not for lying and attempting to overturn a legitimate election. This is where the undemocratic and unconstitutional part comes in.
Especially when:

 

BradStevens

Benchwarmer
Silver Member
Mar 16, 2021
259
356
63
We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that there is something unconstitutional, undemocratic, or untoward about attacking or questioning elections. The ability to do that is the sign of a healthy and robust democracy. Limiting that puts us in North Korean territory.
No one is questioning their "ability" to do what they did. No one is saying what they did is unconstitutional. No one is saying it is illegal. I said it was dangerous--which is stronger than "untoward." I stand by that statement as you stand by saying Biden's statement regarding "Jim Crow on Steriods" was not unconstitutional, not illegal, but dangerous.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
We also should disabuse ourselves of believing every damn thing posted on the internet.
The internet doesn’t talk; people do. We need to decide what and whom to believe in real time. We are as likely to get B.S. from a government office, mainstream media, or the internet.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
That depends if he is defending the right to ask legit questions or make stuff up.

People may have a right to make up stuff, but they should be smart enough not to. Which is where cancel culture can do good, people who just flat out make up conspiracies can be cancelled.
Legit questions? Are you in favor of a Federal Bureau of Legit Questions? The beauty of the First Amendment is that the authorities don’t have a say in what is a legit question or speech. I like that. The problem now is that those who operate the levers of expressive power put their thumbs on the scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
No one is questioning their "ability" to do what they did. No one is saying what they did is unconstitutional. No one is saying it is illegal. I said it was dangerous--which is stronger than "untoward." I stand by that statement as you stand by saying Biden's statement regarding "Jim Crow on Steriods" was not unconstitutional, not illegal, but dangerous.
I agree. I also think people in positions of authority and responsibility have a duty to act responsibly. I think MLB was irresponsible. I think the Capitol fencing and 25k uniformed troops was irresponsible.
 

Harry Hondo

All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Nov 24, 2015
4,094
3,923
113
The internet doesn’t talk; people do. We need to decide what and whom to believe in real time. We are as likely to get B.S. from a government office, mainstream media, or the internet.
Unless one has a ghost writer, their Twitter feed or Facebook page certainly does spread information and ideas and essentially talks. In fact, put two teenagers in a room together and they’re liable to communicate via text only, rather than speak to one another. True story. The world is drastically changing, so get with the program, old man.
 

BradStevens

Benchwarmer
Silver Member
Mar 16, 2021
259
356
63
Unless one has a ghost writer, their Twitter feed or Facebook page certainly does spread information and ideas and essentially talks. In fact, put two teenagers in a room together and they’re liable to communicate via text only, rather than speak to one another. True story. The world is drastically changing, so get with the program, old man.
Teenagers? This is pretty much the only way I communicate with my wife while in the same room.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
Agreed - if it were close. Here it’s absurd.
I’m not sure what difference closeness makes. I agree that most of what Trump claimed was absurd, but I don’t think being absurd is the test for freedom to make a claim. The courts didn’t want to touch any of this. I think all cases were tossed on Rule 12 motions or other procedural grounds.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,453
13,057
113
Legit questions? Are you in favor of a Federal Bureau of Legit Questions? The beauty of the First Amendment is that the authorities don’t have a say in what is a legit question or speech. I like that. The problem now is that those who operate the levers of expressive power put their thumbs on the scale.
The problem is people believing anything they hear just because it agrees with what they want to believe.

I never said a word about a government agency, I won't go bonkers about that as you do.

But employees do look at social media and if they see people posting crazy stuff and refuse to hire them, that will eventually have an impact
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
37,290
8,291
113
The problem is people believing anything they hear just because it agrees with what they want to believe.

I never said a word about a government agency, I won't go bonkers about that as you do.

But employees do look at social media and if they see people posting crazy stuff and refuse to hire them, that will eventually have an impact
I know you didn’t mention a government agency. But who gets to determine a “legit question“ if not an agency?
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,656
10,100
113
I agree. I also think people in positions of authority and responsibility have a duty to act responsibly. I think MLB was irresponsible. I think the Capitol fencing and 25k uniformed troops was irresponsible.

So you're hinting at the 'it was Pelosi's fault' for Jan 6th?

That was one of my favorite right wing gaslighting responses (along with 'it was antifa and BLM!') that when right wingers storm and attack, it's still those damn liberals fault.

That's like if you break into my house, stab me in my sleep and rape my girlfriend well it was my fault because I should have owned a gun and not have such a gorgeous girlfriend.

Makes total sense.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,659
2,277
113
Why does this remind me of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who all claimed to have served in the same unit as John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign when it was later revealed all but one didn't ?
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
9,700
7,708
113
I’m not sure what difference closeness makes. I agree that most of what Trump claimed was absurd, but I don’t think being absurd is the test for freedom to make a claim. The courts didn’t want to touch any of this. I think all cases were tossed on Rule 12 motions or other procedural grounds.
right or wrong closeness matters because judges are just people. and the law is only part of a case. you know that coh. a perfect example is the hanging chads case. it was a clear issue that a judge could understand with defined voters in one location. the issue was clear and the remedy was clear. in these bizarre cases they didn't pass the smell test - the pleadings were goofy and amorphous and the remedies were absurd - no judge is going to invalidate/disenfranchise the votes of thousands if not millions of people.

you have to give a judge a clear issue to resolve and you have to give him a practical remedy. w/o both forget it
 
Last edited:

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
13,656
10,100
113
Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course and if people want to write down and share their stupidity then, go for it in general.

Of course there's a fine line between opinions and influence, which is the distinction.

Hopefully this is just something that gets rejected and laughed at as another extreme group of people who are a little to far down the rabbit hole.

For me though, I'm curious for the whatabout.

My gf's pops is a good dude but is an Al Queda level Trump supporter who when I asked about the military dissing Tucker Carlson who said our military is getting more feminine and shouldn't outfit females who are pregnant.

He raised his voice and said 'the military has one job. Serve your country and shut your f#$king mouth!!!

I'm curious on his reaction to this story.
 

Latest posts