• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

He's a 'never served piece of ****' according to Cabinet member's daughter:

Cigar

Cigar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
5,368
Reaction score
2,117
Location
In The Crosshairs
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The daughter of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, like her father a Navy veteran, appears, in the rawest of terms, to have excoriated President Trump in a social media post after the announcement that transgender soldiers would be banned from the military,” the Billings Gazette reports.

Said Jennifer Detlefsen: “This man is a disgrace. I’ve tried to keep politics out of my social media feed as much as possible, but this is inexcusable… This veteran says sit down and shut the **** up, you know-nothing, never-served piece of ****.”


Link: https://politicalwire.com/2017/08/26/zinkes-daughter-blasts-trump/
 
Cigar said:
The daughter of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, like her father a Navy veteran, appears, in the rawest of terms, to have excoriated President Trump in a social media post after the announcement that transgender soldiers would be banned from the military,” the Billings Gazette reports.

Said Jennifer Detlefsen: “This man is a disgrace. I’ve tried to keep politics out of my social media feed as much as possible, but this is inexcusable… This veteran says sit down and shut the **** up, you know-nothing, never-served piece of ****.”


Link: https://politicalwire.com/2017/08/26/zinkes-daughter-blasts-trump/
Click to expand...

1. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. She is entitled to her opinion.

2. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. (edit) So why should anyone care? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
1. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. She is entitled to her opinion.

2. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. So who cares?
Click to expand...
She is entitled to her opinion. However if she is an active member of the military Im not sure he has 1A protection to voice it like she did.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Captain Adverse said:
1. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. She is entitled to her opinion.

2. She is a private citizen, adult, and not a member of his cabinet. So who cares? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Donny Doll Hand cares, and apparently you too.
 
It doesn't appear that she learned anything in the service. She was probably that problem child that every unit has to deal with.
 
trouble13 said:
She is entitled to her opinion. However if she is an active member of the military Im not sure he has 1A protection to voice it like she did.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It seems that she served from 2004-2008.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that she served from 2004-2008.
Click to expand...

Which, by the math, indicates she is well outside her Mandatory Service Obligation ( MSO) of 8 years, and is free to publically state her opinions on the CinC.

Agree or disagree with her statements, she is still a citizen with 1st Amendment rights and protections.
 
trouble13 said:
She is entitled to her opinion. However if she is an active member of the military Im not sure he has 1A protection to voice it like she did.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The article says she's a veteran, not that she's currently serving, which would mean she is probably no longer restricted by Article 88 of the UCMJ if she was an officer, or Articles 117 and/or 134 of the UCMJ if she was enlisted or an NCO..
 
If she is serving, any action will be subject to the General Court-Martial Authority, and if said Authority is wise, will have her CO call her in and ream her out in private, then send her back to duty.
 
She's right. And she's saying something that is generally known. Trump is a first-class chickenhawk. He didn't use to be the hawk part, but that changed when he figured out that blood and destruction, or language that employed that imagery, made his base feel good.
 
trouble13 said:
She is entitled to her opinion. However if she is an active member of the military Im not sure he has 1A protection to voice it like she did.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Vop said she's a veteran why would you think she's actively serving you right Wingers need to pay attention better
 
JamesBY said:
If she is serving, any action will be subject to the General Court-Martial Authority, and if said Authority is wise, will have her CO call her in and ream her out in private, then send her back to duty.
Click to expand...


Why would you post something like this op says she's a veteran do you know what a veteran is
 
katzgar said:
Why would you post something like this op says she's a veteran do you know what a veteran is
Click to expand...
You must need be able to read clearly. I wrote, "If she is serving". Do you understand that and what it means? If she is on active duty making statements that have been attributed to her, she is in danger of UCMJ punishment. If she is not and not subject to recall, then she can say all she wants. Do you understand what is "a veteran"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom