Brilliant. I have the same sense that he is more concerned about being technically right vs. *in the right.* Seems like he is willing to die on the hill of distinction without a difference.
Can't we make the exact same claim (oath to constitution vs. the commander in chief) for many others currently in government, many of whom have sold their soul? Do you believe the oath of these military leaders is inherently more reliable?
I'm struggling with the premise, which states, "Only the military remains outside Trump’s grip. Despite the firing of several top officers—and Trump’s threat to fire more—the U.S. armed forces are still led by generals and admirals whose oath is to the Constitution, not the commander in chief."
"Addressing people like a Republican?" What are you on about? Yes, they made a mistake. A pretty ignorant one. And it doesn't appear they corrected it despite having over 60k followers. But I'm sure they appreciate you defending them.
Is that a fact? Try telling that to all the folks being punished, persecuted, and prosecuted by the govt for simply trying to exercise that freedom. You sure there's no chance that it's not eroding before our eyes? www.nytimes.com/2025/09/21/u...
I'm not sure I understand the intent of your question. Does one have to experience repressive regimes firsthand in order to correctly identify them? Does one need to have served in the Navy in order to be a good professor of strategy at the Naval War College?
What an odd, out-of-character black-and-white take. I would argue there are many aspects of the current govt that are outright fascist, others that are fascist-adjacent, and still others that are fascist-flirtatious. Besides, public space debate is already being curtailed.
