Question for Straw / Lurker etc. - serious ? not a troll or whatever it’s called

[Marvin Martian]

I have seen EVERY conservative Congressman/woman/person - condemn the violence at the Capitol

Do you think that liberals should condemn the talk by members of Congress calling into question the loyalty of the “white male” National Guardsmen?  I am not talking about the dozen or so that were removed because of inappropriate texts and or social media posts. EVERY member of the military should know AND AGREE that while you are serving you don’t speak I’ll of POTUS. The top of the chain of command is by design a civilian - but they are in fact EVERY military members superior officer.

What I am talking about is the Congressmen/women that have stated - I am not direct quoting - (most of these Guardsmen deployed are white males who probably didn’t vote for this President and should be watched). Those members were to weak / scared to wear the uniform and aren’t fit to question these men and women.
I certainly hope that the left will have the integrity to speak out against their own.

[Deacon Jeschin]

If you enlist in the service, there’s always a chance that a member of a political party you do not side with will become your boss.  If you stay on long term, it’s practically guaranteed.

I believe despite how a National Guardsman feels privately, publicly they should not speak ill of the president. 

[LurkerNoMore]

From what I saw (briefly) two members were booted during the vetting process.  When asked why the answer was that the vetting process determined to be so.  They did not go into any details of what the vetting process was. Or how they determined that.  If their loyalty, interests or "patriotism" lay elsewhere, they should have been removed.   Am I getting that right?

But I don't exactly understand what you mean in that third paragraph.  Can you link a quote to someone or other words?  Again, I have not really followed this.  I am not sure exactly what you are asking me.

[obsidian]

From what I saw (briefly) two members were booted during the vetting process.  When asked why the answer was that the vetting process determined to be so.  They did not go into any details of what the vetting process was. Or how they determined that.  If their loyalty, interests or "patriotism" lay elsewhere, they should have been removed.   Am I getting that right?

But I don't exactly understand what you mean in that third paragraph.  Can you link a quote to someone or other words?  Again, I have not really followed this.  I am not sure exactly what you are asking me.

He is referring to this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/18/dem_rep_cohen_warns_national_guard_mostly_white_males_inauguration_protected_by_.html

He is accusing troops of sedition without evidence and solely based on their race.  Extraordinarily incendiary.

Reality is the election was stolen and Jo Bi Deng will be an illegitimate president. These politicians in DC are guilty of high treason.

[LurkerNoMore]

He is referring to this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/18/dem_rep_cohen_warns_national_guard_mostly_white_males_inauguration_protected_by_.html

He is accusing troops of sedition without evidence and solely based on their race.  Extraordinarily incendiary.

Reality is the election was stolen and Jo Bi Deng will be an illegitimate president. These politicians in DC are guilty of high treason.

Ok, that was a bit clearer.  So what we have is some idiot that says stupid shit.  If I am reading it correctly (the OP question) it is whether every liberal should condemn him.  Based upon the right condemning the riots at the Capital.  Is that correct?  I do believe EVERY person, regardless of party condemned the riots.  Unless I am missing someone who didn't(?).  But using the riots as basis of overall condemnation of someone saying stupid shit?  I would have to say the same number of liberals should condemn him as the same number of conservatives condemned the other congress(wo)man that was babbling on about QAnon shit.  They are both idiots. 

Do I believe there is any truth in the opinion that the military being overall pro-Trump (I don't know the stats on that claim) are a risk and will try some bullshit?  No, I don't.