You tell 'em, congressman Donalds: "‘They Threw a Grenade – Now Feign Outrage’ – No Sympathy For TikTok Traitors".
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) lit into Democrats Friday on Capitol Hill, blasting their viral video urging military mutiny against President Trump as a cynical “grenade” lobbed for clicks and clout—then dismissing their crocodile tears over Trump’s jail threats as “BS” with zero moral high ground.
I suspect the Democrats involved are just "showing their tails", as Old Paco would say, and don't realistically anticipate triggering a Seven Days in May situation, but I could absolutely be wrong about that; always take Democrats at their word when they vow to destroy you.
Has anybody yet given examples of "illegal orders" the troops have been given?
ReplyDeleteI believe several donks have utterly failed to be able to provide such examples when asked.
DeleteElissa Slotkin is one of those failures.
Deletehttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/23/michigan-sen-elissa-slotkin-admits-that-trump-has-not-issued-illegal-orders-to-u-s-military/
It's Trump or his lackeys giving the orders and thus, they are prima facie illegal.
ReplyDeleteIt's axiomatic and does not need explanation.
Anyone saying otherwise is probably a Russian or Jewish agent. Certainly a fascist apologist. Both of those sets are well known as fascist sympathizers.
The Dems just keep throwing their spaghetti of lies at the public wall hoping something will stick.
ReplyDeleteSo this is one plausible explanation of what the donks are trying do here. The poster claims to be retired(?) SF, and I don't have a handle on his credibility.
ReplyDeleteThat said, this explanation is consistent with the "Big Lie" strategy.
I know many of you understand what certain Members of Congress meant by their “unlawful orders” videos earlier this week, but for those of you that don’t, let me explain doctrinally how it was blatant propaganda.
In these videos they were not simply reacting to events (because there was no event where Trump or anyone in his administration issued unlawful orders); they were actively shaping a narrative.
This is how it works:
By repeatedly implying that Trump issued illegal commands—without proving he ever did—they engineered an emotional frame in which he already appears guilty.
The goal was not to establish facts, but to saturate the public consciousness with the idea that Trump is a dangerous, vicious criminal that would force our Active Duty Service Members to commit illegal acts.
This approach mirrors classic propaganda techniques: repetition, where a claim is echoed so often it begins to feel true; association, where Trump’s image is constantly paired with illegality and chaos (again, despite there being no proof to tie to this illegality); emotional priming, using fear and outrage to override critical thinking; and pre-emptive framing, where an accusation is planted so deeply that any later contradictions seem like mere technicalities.
This is called Perception Management in modern IO and Psyop doctrine.
The strategy is simple: if enough people believe an unlawful order must have happened, then proving it becomes unnecessary.
The perception becomes the reality
Source: https://x.com/GBNT1952/status/1992670014374039809?s=20
Thanks, Jeff. That's what I was gonna say, but just in a lot fewer and smaller words. :-)
DeleteCopy&paste is your friend! :-D
Delete