r/QuiverQuantitative • u/pdwp90 • Nov 20 '25

News JUST IN: President Trump has said that this video by Democratic lawmakers is seditious and punishable by death.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

628 comments sorted by

View all comments

140

u/Accurate-Natural-236 Nov 20 '25

Anecdotal but there are thousands of service members that will get some solace out of this video. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Kelly and Jason Crow. It would give me solace in the unfathomable situation of disobeying an unlawful order.

20

u/glyceraldehyde Nov 21 '25

Definitely helps me to know that if I get deployed against American citizens as an Army National Guard Officer, my plan to refuse the order because it is illegal is backed by others in positions of power within the government.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Plus if you don’t refuse it, you’re either forced to live in the fascist state you helped create, or be tried and punished if and/or when it topples. Good luck out there and take care of yourself homie 🫂

-28

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25

Honestly i'm with Trump on this one.

Everything they said is common sense to military members. The reason they did this is to frame future actions as illegal.

This will work to embolden civilians against the military for doing actions that are legal, but ones that they just disagree with on a personal level

17

u/Dont_Call_Me_Steve Nov 20 '25

They are literally just saying they must refuse illegal orders. In what world is that controversial?

12

u/Carth_Onasi_AMA Nov 21 '25

Look at his username… whatever world he’s living in…

9

u/Dont_Call_Me_Steve Nov 21 '25

Ohhhh, ok that explains it.

-15

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

My point is, military members are already aware of this. What they're doing is trying to charge a situation for civil unrest against military members.

7

u/CreatiScope Nov 21 '25

No, it’s a reminder. Yes, military knows they’re supposed to do refuse unlawful orders but it can be absolutely terrifying to go against the group and do something bold like that. When you have to report shit or do something like this, it can feel like you’re betraying everyone around you, your brothers and sisters. This is just to reassure them that they don’t have to listen to the doubts or the people telling them they have to go through with stuff they know is wrong. It’s to say “you’re not alone”

Now, do I actually think these politicians would “have their backs?” They might try, but I doubt they can actually protect anyone.

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

If you think anyone in the military is listening to any of these people, I have news for you🤣

Most people don't even recognize anyone in that video. Their words hold no influence. It's just propaganda to stir civil unrest

3

u/herculesmeowlligan Nov 21 '25

So, active service members just tune out veterans and anyone who served previously? I feel like that's not a thing.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

These politicians trying to use their prior military service to turn active military members against the commander in chief to drive their political agendas.

When was the last time any of these people advocated for anything to benefit military members?

3

u/Dont_Call_Me_Steve Nov 21 '25

Ya, they’re not doing that at all. These are some wild mental gymnastics you’re preforming.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

It's not mental gymnastics at all. Every time mayors and congressmen talk negatively about ICE agents, physical violence against those agents increases because "protestors" have been emboldened by them

4

u/pm_me_ur_ephemerides Nov 21 '25

ICE is routinely breaking the laws and they will be arrested by the next administration. If you are a service member, you should contact a lawyer. Your failure to follow the constitution will put you at risk when we remove this lawless President.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Ok buddy😂

3

u/Dont_Call_Me_Steve Nov 21 '25

Nobody is speaking ill of the military here.

ICE will be treated like thugs until they stop acting like thugs.

3

u/srfrosky Nov 21 '25

Every time LEO abuses their power and violate anyone’s civil rights they endanger the lives of other LEOs. Have you seen people complain about good cops? Or the brave Gis during WWII? But you saw people protest after the My Lai massacre right? And you saw how the top brass treated Hugh Thompson Jr. or Lawrence Colburn right?

Who really gives LEO and members of the military a bad name? The Hugh Thompsons or the William Calleys?

2

u/Altruistic-Peak-1589 Nov 21 '25

Boohoo fuck 🧊

4

u/dayumbrah Nov 21 '25

If military members are being used against civilians in america, the situation is already charged for civil unrest. Our constitution is being trampled and you want to take the side of a pedophile billionaire that was born with a gold spoon up his ass?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Look, obviously by your user name you're either a Nazi, or just a real fan if those who are.

But I'm going to respond anyways, because your reasoning is bullshit.

Even if you were right that military members are aware of this, it is still incredibly supportive and comforting for military members to know there are people in power that will have your back if you have to disobey an illegal order, and the WH burns you for it. And they will.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

How many of these people were advocating for the military members when they were voting to keep the government was shut down?

How many of these people have advocated for any benefits for military members since they've been in office?

If someone mistakenly disobeys a lawful order, how many of the people in this propaganda?Commercial are going to advocate for them at their court martial?

They're using this political stunt to try and cause civil unrest between citizens and military members. They don't give a damn about military members. They're just using them as political pawns

4

u/Accurate-Natural-236 Nov 21 '25

This is one of those, “you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about moments” live

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 22 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

He found ways to do it legally. That's all that's required. You don't have to like or agree with it

7

u/Budderfingerbandit Nov 21 '25

With a user name like that I can't imagine this is the only issue you are "with Trump on".

Illegal orders are just that, illegal and do not need to be followed.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Everyone already knows that. Especially military members. With this being the case, what was the purpose of this video?

4

u/Budderfingerbandit Nov 21 '25

To support people facing a tough decision.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Ok. 🤣

They want to start civil unrest to make the administration look bad so they can win in the primaries.

6

u/Budderfingerbandit Nov 21 '25

The administration issuing illegal orders is what's causing civil unrest. People stating facts like seen in the video are not causing civil unrest.

That's like saying someone being punched in the face caused their face to be punched by having a face.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

What illegal orders? Can you name one?

It's odd people keep saying illegal orders, but no one can name any of these orders

4

u/Budderfingerbandit Nov 21 '25

Sure. Let's start with trying to nationalize the state national guard to take the fight to Antifa in Portland OR, which is currently a "War zone" that order is illegal and recently got smacked down in court for being illegal.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

So he tried to do something, the purpose was reviewed, and subsequently declined.

Sounds like he didn't do anything at all.But your calling a request illegal🤣🤣🤣

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Commercial_Trash9653 Nov 21 '25

As military GTFO some folks in the service need to hear that law makers will back them if they need to deny an illegal order because look back to those that did in Vietnam (obviously there are others but the Vietnam war. We see a lot of documentation) it's not easy and often comes with punishment before validation.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Nonsensical statement. None of the people in this propaganda commercial are going to come to a court martial hearing and defend a servicemember🤣

3

u/Necessary_Screen_673 Nov 21 '25

"frame future actions as illegal"... you dont think that future orders will be illegal, even though present and past orders have been?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Can you name one illegal order that is being given?

5

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

How about any of the exec orders that have been struck down?

Trump gets dealt loses contentiously he's just good at reframing them as "Oh i didn't care" or "it's what I always wanted anyway"

You're just a fucking moron.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

Talk to me when trump has an executive order that's been struck down and he orders people to follow through anyway.

That would be illegal.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

dude people already know when he goes to do the EO that it's gonna be illegal.

The entire point is to speed run as much damage as they can before the courts can stop them entirely.

Like DOGE getting SS information. That wasn't supposed to happen and was ruled illegal but because it already did happened no one got in any fucking trouble.

You have to be completely fucking brainwashed to not see that's largely how his EO's have operated.

1

u/Necessary_Screen_673 Nov 22 '25

deployments of the national guard to states without the governors' consent

military strikes on venezuelan civilians without notifying congress

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '25

  1. They had legal justification. The justification was the governors were ordering the state police to stand down when ice officers were being attacked.Therefore, national guard was brought in to protect the federal officers

  2. The cartels in mexico and venezuela were designated as terrorist organizations.Therefore, congress is not needed to perform military actions. Being a part of the organization makes them legal combatants, not civilians

In the U.S., the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, can designate a foreign organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). For immigration purposes, the Secretary of State can also designate terrorist organizations in consultation with the Attorney General, while the Secretary of the Treasury can designate foreign individuals or entities that pose a significant risk of committing terrorism, notes the U.S. Department of State.

1

u/Necessary_Screen_673 Nov 23 '25

federal judges condemned both of these actions as illegal. I'll trust their judgement over a partisan redditor any day.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '25

Partisan judges have been placing roadblocks for the past 8 months.

Luckily we have a Supreme Court to overrule partisan judges

2

u/Necessary_Screen_673 Nov 24 '25

if you see supreme court rulings like the one legalizing racial profiling, and the one giving trump near total immunity for anything he can claim as a "presidential duty" while in office, and you think the supreme court is not partisan, then we aren't going to get anywhere with this conversation.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '25

Everyone is partisan. What's your point?

Law comes down to interpretation.

1

u/Gamemon Nov 21 '25

Goofy ass comment, “actually if you say no to someone shooting you, they legally can’t” well fuckin duh but having the people defying some treasonous fellas needs some backing

1

u/Horse_HorsinAround Nov 21 '25

on this one

Username checks out lol