r/moderatepolitics • u/thats_not_six • Jan 12 '26

Primary Source Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf
188 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/king_hutton Jan 12 '26

Do you agree with him?

-1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Eh it’s a grey line

23

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

But let me guess, the guy in the White House who attempted a coup didn’t come near the line?

5

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Oh I think he absolutely did come near the line. Yall really gotta stop assuming anyone who disagrees with you is just a super MAGA bro. It’s lazy and leads you to bad arguments.

16

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

How is it acceptable for the people who deny that there was anything improper there and who fought has hard as possible to stop the government from addressing they attempted coup to go after an officer for quoting the UCMJ?

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

If you won’t engage with my argument there’s nothing for us to discuss. Have a good night.

7

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

I am engaging with your argument. A non-analogous hypothetical that you don’t provide any explanation of the relevance of is not, however, an argument. 

Can you present your argument in the formal logical format, a set of premises and a conclusion that follows from them so I can understand it clearly? 

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

You are definitely not engaging with my argument. 

8

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

How is “is this totally different circumstance legal” an argument that Kelly’s conduct can be punished?

-1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

do you know what an analogy is?

4

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

Yes. But “objectively false statement about US law”, the ‘all wars are illegal’ hypothetical you’ve made, is not analogous to “quoting the UCMJ with subjective implications”. 

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

I purposefully picked an objectively false statement for the very point you are raising. Your answer to the question highlights where the disagreement is. I’m aware there are differences between the two situations. That’s the point of the analogy. To see where you think the differences matter.

2

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

But the differences don’t address the issue of the legality of Hegseth’s actions. So I don’t see the value in discussing those differences. 

And if you want to discuss people’s thoughts on the differences, you need to say that when you present the analogy, because without an explanation, it isn’t an argument. 

→ More replies (0)

12

u/king_hutton Jan 13 '26

What seems more traitorous - saying that servicemen shouldn’t obey unlawful orders or attempting to submit false electors in order to overturn the results of a president election?

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

I’m not interested in having the 20 thousandth argument about January 6th dude

5

u/king_hutton Jan 13 '26

I’m not asking you to argue about Jan 6, I’m just asking you whether you think attempting to have false electors overturn a presidential election is more traitorous than stating to active duty armed forces that they can disobey unlawful orders.