Does openly and aggressively berating or insulting people who voted for Hillary or Trump warrant an Article 134 violation under UCMJ?

SSG Jim Beverly — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:28:53 -0500

*First Edit*
There seems to be some misunderstanding: the nature of my question isn't about disrespecting or defying the POTUS, it's about when service members berate, insult or lash out at civilians, friends, peers or family members on social media or otherwise, simply because they voted for the opposite candidate.

*Second Edit*
Also, to clarify, I believe the behavior in question is wrong. I think some folks interpreted my question as asking for justification to be a jerk, but that couldn't be further from the case. I just wanted to generate discussion about people's opinions regarding whether being aggressive or hateful towards voters because of their choice was just being a crappy person, or a legitimate punitive breach of military bearing and discipline.

When President Obama won, there was a deluge of complaints, the birther movement, a different brand of "Not my president." Now that President Trump has won office, there's similar sentiment. On either side, there is a lot of aggression being thrown around. Do you feel Service Members have a higher responsibility to be respectful of the American voters, regardless of their choice?

Respect of the POTUS is a given, we're expected, as service members, to render that. My question is more in line with respecting the fellow Americans that voted; it seems antithetical to me to be aggressive and hurtful to fellow Americans, especially those that have dissenting opinions from ours, for exercising one of the fundamental rights we swore to uphold and defend.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Feb 23 at 2017 10:32 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:32:41 -0500

Service Members should remain nuetral in public, IMV. Not too difficult to do. Problem solved if you adhere to that.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 23 at 2017 10:32 PM

SFC George Smith — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:32:47 -0500

because she was a Sec State there is a possible Issue under Article 92... I Think that's it...

Response by SSG Jim Beverly made Feb 23 at 2017 10:32 PM

SSG Jim Beverly — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:32:50 -0500

I can't edit the initial question, but I was limited in space. I would like to clarify that it should read "Hillary OR Trump." I am not taking sides on this, I just want to pose the question that the choice of the American voter is an absolute right they are entitled to, and some of the horrendous aggression and vitriol I see from both sides makes me incredibly sad; I didn't earn a Purple Heart and serve my country for over 14 years to watch the people tear each other apart over an election choice.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2017 10:33 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:33:11 -0500

Yes. And people who are still service members need to know where they should draw the line. I supported the election of President Trump, but he is the 4th president under which I've served, and 2 of them are men whose elections I did not support, but it would never occur to me to say the things I see sometimes about past, and especially, our current president.

Response by SSgt Gary Andrews made Feb 23 at 2017 10:41 PM

SSgt Gary Andrews — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:41:09 -0500

Although I've become very politically minded since leaving the service, I must say that while I was on active duty, I paid no attention to politics whatsoever. I cared a lot more about who my Commanding Officer was than who my POTUS was or which party controlled congress. My C.O. had a more direct impact on my quality of life, as I saw it at the time. Maybe this has changed in today's military....but I hope not. I don't believe it's a serviceman's or servicewoman's place to question the politics behind the orders they might receive......you don't not follow orders because you don't agree with the politics of the person that gave them to you. And you sure don't fail to back up your buddies because they voted for someone other than you did. Plenty of time for politics after you leave the service.....shouldn't be your concern while you're there.

Response by SFC Anthony Franke made Feb 23 at 2017 11:07 PM

SFC Anthony Franke — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:07:33 -0500

BLUF is this: Donald J. Trump is the President, like it or not. He is the Commander-In-Chief. Some didn't like it when Clinton, Bush, and Obama were inaugurated. This is irrelevant as a Servicemember. Read your oath and live it. Also relevant: Be certain you have read the regulations regarding servicemembers and protesting, particularly in uniform.

Response by LTC Trent Klug made Feb 23 at 2017 11:11 PM

LTC Trent Klug — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:11:02 -0500

I think you have to know your audience. If you have any question about who is involved in the discussion, then you have to be civil and mindful of being respectful for the office of President. I have had to change on what I say and how I say it because I am on active duty for another year and a half. In public, I definitely keep my comments either to myself or try to deflect the conversation elsewhere.

If you know all in your group, you can be a little more loose with your comments but you still need to tread lightly, and I try very hard not to have my friends of other political persuasions to leave with hard feelings. Arguing politics isn't worth losing professional and personal relationships.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 12:51 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:51:04 -0500

SSG Jim Beverly It does not matter who the POTUS is or what is going on with politicians. I served from 1968 to 1972. My concerns were serving my country to the best of my ability, my Marine Corps, and my fellow Marines. Nothing else mattered besides family. When I left Vietnam, I went to Okinawa for three or four days. While there, I found out that my best buddy had been killed the day after I left country. When I arrived at LAX, I was greeted by a whole group of protestors (I can not stand protestors to this day). One female asked me how many babies had I killed, and another female told me to repent for my sins. I was in a semi state of shock because my buddy had been killed, and I was not prepared for the hate at the airport. I was in uniform, so I showed remarkable restraint. I have never hit a woman, and I really wanted to hit these two and some of the others. I did not because I would not bring dishonor to myself or the Marine Corps.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 12:51 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:51:07 -0500

To answer your question SSG Jim Beverly YES, but then again it is all about perception what was said. I had a personal experience where someone (superior to me, in my direct chain of command) asked, "You're not one of those TRUMP supporters are you!?" The first thing that came to my mind, "Ma'am/Sir, I am a supporter of the Commander in Chief, whoever they are." I left it at that. There is a huge difference when political opinions are shared with family and friends, and when political opinions are shared in the workplace. Let alone being on post, in uniform, with other SMs.

Its always a great idea to tread lightly and remain politically neutral when you are a SM. Active/Reserve/Guard.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 12:56 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:56:07 -0500

No it doesn't

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 12:56 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:56:42 -0500

Yes of one attempts to use their rank within conversation

Response by SGT David T. made Feb 24 at 2017 7:55 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:55:28 -0500

Honestly, anyone on the Federal payroll shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. I don't have any experience with conduct unbecoming due to that being an officer only infraction. A service member is not subject to the Hatch Act, but the essence of it is captured in DoDD 1344.10 so they need to be careful on how they discuss politics. My general rule was to avoid discussions of politics at work except to encourage my subordinates to vote. Religion and politics tend to be quite heated at times and should be avoided in the workplace as they are irrelevant to the mission.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Feb 24 at 2017 8:01 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:01:45 -0500

SSG Jim Beverly The entire time I served I kept my political opinions about our civilian leadership to myself. Both as enlisted and as a Commissioned Officer I took several oaths to support and follow the orders of those appointed above me (that includes the Civilian Leadership). From a leadership standpoint I felt it was important to keep my political opinions and opinions of those over me to myslef. If I had an issue with a boss in the military or in civilian life I addressed them one-on-one in private with my issues and tried to resolve them professionally. Most of the time that approach worked very well. I can't speak for others and their right to freedom of speech, but there are always consequences to bad mouthing the Commander in Chief in an open military forum. I have to refer to the JAG with regard to the UCMJ, but I believe there is an Article that covers something close to your question about comments made against leadership and partiipating in activies that would undermine the service branches. My recommendation is always maintaint he best military bearing and use common sense! If it doesn't pass the common sense test then walk away or keep your opinions to yourself! Just my 2 cents

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Feb 24 at 2017 9:03 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:03:26 -0500

Military bearing at all times while active duty or in uniform.

Response by MSG Mark Million made Feb 24 at 2017 9:30 AM

MSG Mark Million — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:30:57 -0500

I believe everyone's opinion should be respected as long as it is show in a respectful manner. Opinions shown by rioting, blocking moving traffic, and hurling insults and callous remarks however don't deserve my respect.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 9:35 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:35:06 -0500

As a service member, I pay no attention to politics whatsoever. There are more pressing things to be concerned with than worrying about who is in the White House. A company commander is far more influential than who is in the oval office. As service members, we have no opinion of the POTUS, he's or commander in chief regardless of who he is. There is no time or energy to question the orders given from all the way at the top. Energy should be spent on influencing and developing leaders at the tactical level, and keeping our military the best there is - and its people that make that happen. Politics has no place in the military.

Response by SSG Tom Pike made Feb 24 at 2017 9:42 AM

SSG Tom Pike — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:42:57 -0500

I'd say it depends.
It depends upon if the person is bringing discredit upon the military.
So is it happening in he office? then yes
Happening while the SM is in uniform? then yes
Happening at some sort of protest or public event where the SM publicly identifies as military? Then yes.
Happening at a grocery store or gas station while the SM is in civilian clothes and not identifying themselves as military? then no.
Happening at a family gatheringg with your liberal idiot brother in law? then no (as long as you don't beat his ass)

Response by COL John Hudson made Feb 24 at 2017 10:31 AM

COL John Hudson — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:31:48 -0500

Not so difficult a question, actually. The U.S. Constitution gives all of us the right of free association, and in equal measure we have a locked-in-stone right to our individual opinions. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves by dancing and demonstrating in the streets, let them...it brings me no harm. Any service member in any branch of the several services may do so as well, but NOT in uniform. Doing so sends the wrong message, appearing to lend support of the military to such. The services are tied by allegiance to the Office of the President of the U.S., and not to any individual cause. We are, after all, a democracy and not a dictatorship.

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Feb 24 at 2017 11:24 AM

SSG Keith Cashion — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:24:19 -0500

Since the election, I have seen on both sides of the fence berating and being down right hurtful to others of differing opinions. I have seen where people that have been life long friends all of a sudden no longer wanting contact with each other. I know of a person that is due to go to a family reunion and has been warned that their are other family members that are quite upset for who they voted for. I have friends that wouldn't talk to me because of the way I voted, even though I never told them, it was more of a case of "You are either with me or against me."

I like a few others in this thread have served under several different administrations, and I like others at the time when in uniform, really didn't care who was behind that desk. I had a mission and an oath to keep and honor. When people talked about politics when I was in, and asked my opinion, I would always tell them..."Ask me when I retire."

The problem as I see it, is because the scenery has changed and it is not to peoples liking, then the system must be broken, hacked, cheated, stolen, whatever they are saying this week, and in reality, it's just the fact that some people have gotten away with the fact that people will always have a difference of opinion or viewpoint. So incomes the bashing, and other stupid actions of people and they should be held accountable.

Response by CW3 Steven Prestridge made Feb 24 at 2017 11:43 AM

CW3 Steven Prestridge — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:43:43 -0500

The best part of the election right now is Mattis. I'm happier than a retard in a room full of bouncy balls about that. As for berating people for how they voted, maybe it is an age gap, but I would handle it on the spot. I wouldn't start any official paperwork on the issue. I would tell the soldiers involved that, if they couldn't tease each other about politics in a good natured way, then they should shut their pie holes. If it continued, I would call the instigator into the office on Friday afternoon, and give them a pocket Constitution. I would then require them to hand write the Constitution up to the 11th Amendment. They would have to turn it in on Monday morning. This serves two purposes. It takes away some free time on the weekend, and it familiarizes them with the foundation of our Republic.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 11:54 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:54:48 -0500

People reported me cause they didn't like what I said about Trump, but guess what the same people who reported me are the same people who disrespected Obama when he was President. They are also the same people who said they wouldn't follow any orders Obama gave. Majority of my unit supports Trump I however supported Hillary and now I'm public enemy number one.

Response by SPC Don Wynn made Feb 24 at 2017 12:03 PM

SPC Don Wynn — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:03:52 -0500

As Service Members there are certain freedoms we give up as a consequence of that service. And additional obligations that a regular citizen is not beholden to. That's what made, and makes, us special. One of those obligations - and as far as I'm concerned, honors - was the oath we swore to defend this country, it's citizens and the Constitution. As such, your political opinions should be kept to yourself. As far as UCMJ, it would depend on the nature of the conversation and to whom it was directed.

Response by CW3 Steven Prestridge made Feb 24 at 2017 12:10 PM

CW3 Steven Prestridge — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:10:26 -0500

I believe one of the best examples of proper military bearing, one we should seek to emulate, was when Congressman Hank Johnson (D) of Georgia, was questioning Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, about stationing 8,000 more Marines on Guam. Congressman Johnson asked the Admiral if, "... the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize". Instead of laughing his ass off at a completely retarded question, the Admiral gave a stoic faced answer that he didn't believe that would be a possibility. That was Professionalism in action, and a great example to service members everywhere. What the Admiral said to his fellow officers in the club later is not public knowledge. I recommend you check it out if you haven't already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

Congressman Hank Johnson fears Guam will tip over, March 25, 2010

Crazier than these statements? That he was re-elected to serve another term...Filed under, Stupid things politicians say.. http://youtube.com/mikecann Subscr...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 4:49 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:49:44 -0500

how someone votes is their business and their right, to berate or insult openly or privately is an insult and works against the unity of the unit and service whether you are ac/rc/ng, remember even though rc/ng you are still held accountable

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2017 11:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:56:45 -0500

Like everyone said before not in our job title to question orders. Make sure you read the regulations on everything within your skill level and try to understand at least to levels higher and you will be fine.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 25 at 2017 1:45 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 01:45:30 -0500

SSG Jim Beverly The way we treat others should be covered by Army Values.

As others have said, it does not matter who the POTUS is, as we serve at the pleasure of the president, at least once we are commissioned... I served from Carter to Obama, and although I had disdain for things they did, they were still the boss, and the Commander-In-Chief, so my opinion mattered not. That said, no one in the military should bad mouth any president - that is punishable under the UCMJ, nor should we ever berate our peers because of who you voted for. The later is not a violation of the UCMJ, nor should it be. What is happening now, is folks who voted for President Trump, who endured 8 years of President Obama, are excited, and are sticking in the eyes of everyone who they perceive did the same in 08 and 12. There was a lot of gloating in 08 and 12, and the president himself said "elections have consequences." And, that they do.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2017 1:57 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 01:57:03 -0500

Soldiers get into arguments, it happens. At the end of the day though we'd still throw rounds down range for each other. So my question is how bad are the arguments getting? Are people disregarding rank? Mistreating their juniors?

Discussion, even in disagreement, even very heated disagreement is fine but there is a line we don't cross.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 25 at 2017 2:23 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:23:15 -0500

Service members need to tread lightly. It's Art134. It's Art88 for commissioned officers. It may even be Art 92. It is the second order sacrifices you make when you swear the oath. Don't Be that guy. There was a time when the apolitical nature of the service was the model of dignity and how won serves the nation and the constitution and by extension, the people of the United States.

This very simple tenant of service is what separates the US from other countries, roiling in military coups, counter coups, purges, dysfunctional militaries hobbled to keep them from being a threat, political figureheads with military juntas, and the general lack of human rights and justice. Other countries have governments collapse and rise so frequently their currency is worthless and stability non-existent. It is that stability that makes us strong and sets conditions for prosperity and harmony. It is all, at the end a fragile whisper because it is an idea. An idea that only has hold because we believe it.

Response by MSgt Neil Greenfield made Feb 25 at 2017 9:36 PM

MSgt Neil Greenfield — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:36:57 -0500

Well, one thing to think about is that when you post something that's really "below the belt" is that's it's always out there, even if you delete it. Someone saw it, and there are sites that actually "record" other sites.
So, having said this, for those of you that are potentially looking for civilian employment in the future, be aware that some organizations that you might want to work for may actually look at your "behavior" on social media sites. If it goes against the organizations "code of conduct", you've been red flagged.
I know people who have been fired because of their conduct on social media. Fair or not, that's the way it is. You might say that what you say or do on social media that's not work related is none of their business, but "right to work" also means "right to fire".
At the very least, it might cause you to lose a promotion, or possibly being reassigned to something you don't want to do.
Think first about it before you post.

Response by SGT(P) Jazmin Johnson made Feb 26 at 2017 9:01 AM

SGT(P) Jazmin Johnson — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:01:10 -0500

I don't think that political conversations belongs in the workplace by any means, it may cause tension or worse. In reference to the social media I find that a little more difficult to address. If you have friends on social media that are in your unit, company etc then it should be immediately understood that things may be posted that could cause conflict or controversy. I do also however believe that as a soldier ( especially at my rank) I do not have the same freedom of speech as my civilian peers. It's simply a sacrifice I must accept since the day I rose my right hand. Perhaps I am in the minority with these ideals, but it hasn't done me wrong.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Feb 26 at 2017 10:22 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:22:32 -0500

You are certainly allowed to an opinion BUT...(and there always is one) one must be judicious in how and where said opinions are expressed. In the barracks among friends or in the housing area at a neighborhood get together is one thing. And you can be as direct and aggressive as you wish. Once you change into a uniform, that all changes. You are now a visible representative of the United States. Your words and actions mean things and they do have consequences. Social media is an exception. You have no absolute right to free speech as your words can come back and bite your balls off. There is not a week goes by I don't see where someone let his or her mouth overload their @$$ and do or say something that will get them in deep...VERY deep, to the point of facing NJP, Court Martial, loss of a security clearance or worse.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Feb 26 at 2017 2:36 PM

MSgt John McGowan — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:36:09 -0500

There has be pretty ugly things happen since the election. Is it me but there has been more trouble with riots, marches, blocking highways etc. That is after President Trump election. The progressives took this very hard and full of hate. Even the Democrats are talking impeachment before a month was over. Looking for Constitutional ways to take him out. The refugee order that the court stopped was said to be political.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Feb 27 at 2017 7:51 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:51:26 -0500

Since we seem to have turned into a nation of whiney babies if my candidate didn't win, I would and have decided that keeping one's choice to themselves seems to be the way to go especially in the workplace.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Feb 27 at 2017 5:57 PM

CPT Larry Hudson — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:57:03 -0500

Yes. In military, you do not berateanyone about race, religion, politics

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Mar 2 at 2017 1:44 PM

LTC Jesse Edwards — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:44:04 -0500

It's just really inappropriate, if not a violation of UCMJ, for an active duty person to get "too" involved in politics. The standard for "too" involved is a low one to trip in my view. You should be able to vote. You should be able to tell your friends and family how you plan to vote. Once you climb further on to that limb though, it gets shaky fast... in my opinion and no, I'm not a JAG officer so take this as opinion only.

Response by COL Carlos Burgos made Mar 2 at 2017 4:38 PM

COL Carlos Burgos — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:38:08 -0500

Yes it does. I had to look it up since it been awhile since I read through the UCMJ. Below is an except of the first paragraph. Of more concern to me is possibly the lack of understanding of the oath of enlistment or office. When my son took his oath to serve this country, not much discussion was given to the meaning of that oath. As prior service members and active members, we should take the time to educate our junior, peer and senior members and on-spot correct whenever we see these "Disloyal Statements" being spread, regardless of the medium use to spread it -- Facebook, tweeter, etc. Its the act that needs to be corrected We gave up certain rights in order to service our country faithfully regardless of who leads it. Those we serve to protect can complain all they want, thats one of the reasons we served/serve...to provide our citizen the freedom of speech...however distasteful it is. Take time to explain the rules and we'll have a better service.
72. Article 134—(Disloyal statements)
a. Text of statute. See paragraph 60. b. Elements.
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to an- other person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Response by SFC Scott Parkhurst made Mar 10 at 2017 12:39 AM

SFC Scott Parkhurst — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:39:13 -0500

I totally understood your question the first time. That being said, it's so sad that at least for me I've been seeing, hearing and as a matter of fact I have even been seeing some people on FaceBook. Tell/ask "friends" that if they didn't vote for "so and so" to please befriend them....Is that the craziest thing you have ever heard of? Well it is for me. Cause once your my friend your my friend for life no matter who you voted for!. Okay now those military personnel who bash anyone for their free right to vote for anyone they want to....first of all shame on you (not you Sgt."Jim") and yes, you (they) should be written up. Why the heck did they join the military then? Why are they then defending this Country and the RIGHT of those who live here and their RIGHT to vote etc.? Sound's to me when these Soldier's bash those who voted for whom ever they wanted for but not the one that the Soldier did, is a big Hippocrat. We're suppose to have an open mind and be balanced and to not judge other's and my being in the Military and having been a police officer has made me very fair and patient. It starts at home where we learn to not pull this kind of crap....Then while at base/post etc., the NCO's must watch out for this kind of behavior as well and stomp it before it get's out of hand and get that soldier councling and or write 'em up if under certain circumstances. Okay that's my 2 cents for now.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 15 at 2017 9:50 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:50:02 -0400

You are in the military, Political Activity is illegal, period. I am fine with that, I welcome a respite from the endless political arguments. When I was a police officer it was illegal for officers or their union to endorse any politician. I liked that, it settled the argument, period. You have a political opinion and so do I, I'm not interested in yours

Response by PO2 Arthur Delsing made Mar 16 at 2017 1:17 PM

PO2 Arthur Delsing — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:17:52 -0400

This is ruled by the following:

"The primary guidance concerning political activity for military members is found in DoD
Directive 1344.10 [Guidance for Military Personnel]. Per longstanding DoD policy, active duty
personnel may not engage in partisan political activities and all military personnel should avoid
the inference that their political activities imply or appear to imply DoD sponsorship, approval,
or endorsement of a political candidate, campaign, or cause. Members on active duty may not
campaign for a partisan candidate, engage in partisan fundraising activities, serve as an officer of
a partisan club, or speak before a partisan gathering. Active duty members may, however,
express their personal opinions on political candidates and issues, make monetary contributions
to a political campaign or organization, and attend political events as a spectator when not in
uniform"

I would think that this would continue to relate beyond the election as well. If they are out of uniform then they can say what they want and how they want. If the berating is occurring while in uniform then yes they are subject to discipline but should only get to the level of UCMJ after other methods of changing behavior has been attempted. UCMJ should be the last resort.

Response by MAJ Glenn Woodson made Mar 16 at 2017 1:42 PM

MAJ Glenn Woodson — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:42:37 -0400

Your questions goes to a much bigger problem of how social media and society has become more open to just blasting out personal opinions as a right regardless of how others may feel. Sometimes this is good for spurring conversation but mostly you get knee jerk reactions which is exactly what the speaker wanted in the first place. Respect has taken a back seat for many people. For the military it is no different. If the free speech violates stated regulations the speaker must accept the punishment (e.g., refusal to stand or salute the flag) since we all signed an oath, etc.

Response by MSG John Hill made Mar 16 at 2017 3:09 PM

MSG John Hill — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:09:27 -0400

Great questions and I can only give you my sentiment. I spent 16 of my twenty two years under only two Presidents. Mathematically, 8/11ths of my total service time was equally divided between a Democrat and a Republican POTUS who was also my CinC. At that time, there was no 'social media', per say, so it was a lot easier to hold my disappointment and/or admiration in check, but would never have spoken negatively or positively toward my CinC in public.

I believed, and still do, that it is a moral and ethical violation of the oath I swore to when I enlisted, but not necessarily a legal one. When we start bringing UCMJ charges against a service member who is just expressing an opinion, without crossing the line into actions unbecoming, then that leads into the chain of command charging windmills.

Don't get me wrong, when I was behind closed doors with my peers, family, or friends, I let my feelings be known, but NEVER in a public forum...Especially while in uniform!!!

Response by 1SG James Lyon made Mar 16 at 2017 3:29 PM

1SG James Lyon — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:29:22 -0400

Being publicly disrespectful of another soldier is simply poor leadership. Especially when it is in regards to their political affiliation. Whether or not it is a violation of the UCMJ is a chain of command decision. If you feel that the observed behavior is a violation of the UCMJ you should bring the question to the chain of command for resolution, if it the chain of command that is in question there is always some one higher. Whether or not you decide to exercise that option is up to you. I would recommend taking the offender aside and explaining that their behavior is not acceptable first.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Mar 16 at 2017 5:18 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:18:08 -0400

It could be taken as harassment, depending on what was said and how it was said and the relationship between the two parties. If in Uniform and you berate someone, then yes.

Response by SSG Ricky Johnson made Mar 17 at 2017 5:48 PM

SSG Ricky Johnson — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:48:11 -0400

Whomever is president (it doesn't matter whom: I've been through about 8 of them since I turned 18) is the CinC. Never a doubt. But anything that is said aloud is open for action by anyone at anytime. He just happens to be at the top of the chain of command. All down through that command is a bunch of political appointees and career senior level persons with their own agendas. Some will change over time, others won't. While you are in uniform, you do not have an option to pick and choose your leaders. You go where assigned. It doesn't do you any good to get upset over something you have no control over. You get one time a year to bitch: voting day. That's when you can express your feelings. Your troops don't need to hear you opinion as, you just follow the lawful orders of those above you.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Apr 20 at 2017 3:16 PM

CPT Larry Hudson — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:16:40 -0400

Absolutely. Three things that are not aired in military in open forum. Politics; Race; Religion

Response by CPL Wilfred Roberge made Apr 23 at 2017 7:50 PM

CPL Wilfred Roberge — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:50:53 -0400

I was in Uniform and was stopped and asked about the Potus and North Korea. I said to the lady I think that the President is doing what any prior president would do or should do (Carrier Battle Group)

Response by CW4 Scott Hyde made Apr 25 at 2017 1:18 PM

CW4 Scott Hyde — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:18:12 -0400

Leave them alone and remain professional. They have their own demons to deal with so let them be.

Response by CPL Billy Nunnelee made May 4 at 2017 8:56 AM

CPL Billy Nunnelee — Thu, 04 May 2017 08:56:53 -0400

No matter the outcome the President is in our chain of command

Response by TSgt James Carson made May 6 at 2017 3:07 PM

TSgt James Carson — Sat, 06 May 2017 15:07:37 -0400

Grow up and put a sock in it. You serve your country and the President no matter. You won't always get the out come YOU want, but you are part of huge team . and need to realize this. We have a wonderful system, though it is often slow in action. IF laws were broken it will be found out. Keep the faith and stay vigilant.

Response by SP5 Dave (Shotgun) Shockley made May 11 at 2017 1:15 PM

SP5 Dave (Shotgun) Shockley — Thu, 11 May 2017 13:15:33 -0400

Jim I believe that unless you can control your emotions, and know the person you will be talking to can control theirs it is a bad idea. I would recommend never discussing politics or religion unless there is a yes answer to the statement above. I have friends on both side of the issue. Some I know I can discuss anything and not loose a friendship. Others I just have to listen and keep quiet because anything that I say will start a war of words that know one will win.

America is all about the right to have your own opinion without being vilified. However there are some groups that do not agree with free speech if your opinion is contrary to theirs.

I do feel that if my rights need to be defended I will definitely stand up for them without being overly aggressive unless the situation calls for it to protect myself. It seems that in todays climate it is becoming more and more necessary to stand up for your rights.

I hope my rambling hasn't confused the issue. Thanks for posting.

Last observation. After reading the comments to this discussion I feel extremely proud of our brotherhood, and the thoughtful comments that have been made. GOD Bless our men and women in service to our country.

Response by CPO Mike Castro made May 12 at 2017 5:03 PM

CPO Mike Castro — Fri, 12 May 2017 17:03:44 -0400

If it' starts to affect the unit absolutely. Seeing as the oath of enlistment and the thing Officers say both have "support the President of the United States" during my career the Officers were very good at changeing the subject.

Response by LtCol Paul Backs made May 15 at 2017 6:28 PM

LtCol Paul Backs — Mon, 15 May 2017 18:28:07 -0400

Free speech is just that. However, you can't libel or slander with the intent to hurt or damage. You can say things like "In my opinion he is a crook" because you are offering an opinion. Having said all that, I think it is in bad form to berate someone just because they don't agree with you.

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made May 17 at 2017 11:00 AM

SGT Tim Fridley — Wed, 17 May 2017 11:00:08 -0400

It does not matter who is in the Whitehouse it does not do any good to berate anyone over it our job as a Military member is to defend the country the constitution and the CIC no matter who it is

Response by TSgt Mario Guajardo made May 26 at 2017 3:37 PM

TSgt Mario Guajardo — Fri, 26 May 2017 15:37:44 -0400

I was told numerous times throughout my Air Force career that we are held to a higher standard. Service members should ALWAYS be professional and their conduct should be above reproach. Public politics has no place in the execution of your duties.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made May 29 at 2017 1:12 AM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Mon, 29 May 2017 01:12:02 -0400

My point of view is that of a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer with over 25 years of service and a graduate of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Brunswick, Georgia. When I started there the golf course had a really great water hazard Albert the alligator and the Vietnam veterans would feed him chickens. That is still a topic of conversations down here in Washington during Police Week. Before anyone asks we old timers have long memories and a really sick sense of humor. The young people enjoy listening to our war stories especially when we are telling stories about the rookie misadventures of their leaders.
The Hatch Act covered my employment as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer as follows Permitted Activities were:
May be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
May register and vote as they choose
May assist in voter registration drives
May express opinions about candidates and issues
May contribute money to political organizations
May attend political fundraising functions
May attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
May join and be an active member of a political party or club
May sign nominating petitions
May campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
May campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
May make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
May distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
May hold office in political clubs or parties including serving as a delegate to a convention
May not use their official authority or influence to interfere with an election
May not solicit, accept or receive political contributions unless both individuals are members of the same Federal labor organization or employee organization and the one solicited is not a subordinate employee
May not knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the agency
May not engage in political activity while on duty
May not engage in political activity in any government office
May not engage in political activity while wearing an official uniform
May not engage in political activity while using a government vehicle
May not be candidates for public office in partisan elections
May not wear political buttons on duty

Response by CWO4 Tim Hecht made May 29 at 2017 3:00 AM

CWO4 Tim Hecht — Mon, 29 May 2017 03:00:27 -0400

Jim - I could see several other Punitive Articles of the UCMJ being brought to bear here; regardless of who is berating others for their political choices (and I suspect there are "anti-President Trump people out there in uniform too) doing what you suggest is certainly wrong and deserving of official action to correct this behavior.

Response by SGT Mike Moschkin made May 29 at 2017 10:20 AM

SGT Mike Moschkin — Mon, 29 May 2017 10:20:39 -0400

Politics should stay out of the military how you think in civilian life is your business. To me this election was a lose lose situation. On active duty you serve alongside people who may save your life or you save his life there isn't room for hesititaion that politics may cause..

Response by SPC Patrick Caldwell made Jun 1 at 2017 6:56 AM

SPC Patrick Caldwell — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 06:56:18 -0400

Politics and religion (or the philosophy of it), in my opinion, should be avoided topics of conversation in professional environments as well as at social places like bars and clubs. Differences in opinion tread down a rocky path and honestly hurt unit cohesion in a military environment. Also, let's be honest here; talking about these kind of things at a bar really just kills the vibe there.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Jun 4 at 2017 2:54 PM

SFC Wade W. — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 14:54:49 -0400

After reading many of the comments here I have come to the conclusion that this discussion took many tracks off the main line. In our great country, we are allowed to support or not support different political parties, persons, and ideas. But, just because we support one and not the other, that does not give us the right to bash, berate, and aggressively speak ill of supporters of another. I do not fully agree with any one party, politician, representative or POTUS. I also don't always fully agree with people who proclaim to be of the same party, faith, race, branch, etc as me. We have the right to believe and speak freely, however, that does not give us the right to become total jerks. It is called common respect. In the military, they teach us that respect isn't always earned. Sometimes it is given because of position or rank/grade. Common respect means that you respect people just because it's the right thing to do. If you don't agree, don't spew/vomit all over their idea. As they say in one of the groups for my local community, "just scroll on by". No need to comment, post or share.
As for raising to Art 134 level. I would say did the servicemember bring discredit upon the service by their actions? If so, yes. It is worthy of an Art 15 being charged under Art 134.
I hope this helps with your thought.

Response by MSG James Hughs made Jun 5 at 2017 10:55 AM

MSG James Hughs — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:55:14 -0400

Just my opinion but.....I think the UCMJ should be used to protect the service....prevent people from bringing disgrace to the uniform..... a line has to be drawn somewhere .... we swear to uphold and protect the Constitution.....which guarantees freedom of speech..... as long as the tirade does not bring the service into disrespect ....is a personal statement ....it should be permitted even if you disagree with it.....I have known racists ( both black and white) while in the service.... and as long as they kept their views out of the service....out of uniform.....I just went the other way....associated with other people
This could be taken to a ridiculous extreme where we punish someone for picking their nose while in uniform.... Lets not curtail personal freedom to a point where we lose the very freedom of expression .....even expression we disagree with..... that the Constitution gives us...... You want to burn the flag in civilian clothes...fine.....do it in uniform....NOT ALLOWED

Response by CDR William Kempner made Jun 8 at 2017 5:38 PM

CDR William Kempner — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 17:38:40 -0400

I like the second edit. While I'm NO Obama fan, and wasn't a Clinton fan, I am reminded of a buddy whose men were talking trash about Clinton, and he said "I am appreciate how you feel, but if you act on that, I'll have to kill YOU, as it is my duty to protect the President." That cooled their ardor, somewhat There it is. We don't have to agree with them, and you can have your own feelings, but it is better to keep them to yourself. And at the next election vote for someone else. That's how we do it. I have had to remind some civilian acquaintances of the same thing of late.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2017 11:24 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 23:24:08 -0400

I'll put it this way, you're not to be criticizing the commander in chief. That being said, once a certain person left office, ten minutes later I made the comment that he could go to hell. He was no longer the commander in chief and held no standing or authority. I was pleasantly surprised to wake up and find that Ms. Clinton lost. I do not care for her as a general rule.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Jun 9 at 2017 11:01 AM

SGT James Colwell — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:01:31 -0400

Back in the day, if social media was available as it is today, and one or more of my soldiers was behaving as you described, I would counsel them to stop. If it continued, I would follow the required disciplinary actions, regardless of their political leanings. It is conduct unbecoming, pure and simple. Soldiers are supposed to conduct themselves professionally and as much as possible, apolitically.

Response by SSG George Duncan made Jun 13 at 2017 5:17 PM

SSG George Duncan — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:17:44 -0400

the election is long over ,if not UCMJ it is bad manners

Response by SGT J M Porters made Jun 13 at 2017 5:25 PM

SGT J M Porters — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:25:07 -0400

What I have learned is to change the conversation. We are here to serve and stay on mission. We vote, we write our congressman and hopefully stay out of trouble. It also reminds me of Friday night at the NCO club. We are never disrespectful of the SGM or entertain the conversation. We are a unit and we have to work together to get the job done.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Jun 13 at 2017 9:49 PM

MSgt John McGowan — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:49:56 -0400

SGT. I recently said something on another social network or answered a comment on a post. To be honest, he Trump is POTUS and the highest office in the land. Several people didn't agree with me and they certainly let me know it. In that same turn, I certainly wasn't a Clinton fan. In fact, I am not a Democrat fan. Politics is getting to political.

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Jun 16 at 2017 9:53 AM

HN Chris Robinette — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:53:44 -0400

Yes when Obama was re elected many were saying the same thing for a few months but we did not take it as far as the liberals, and democrats have. they have been behaving like the Brown shirt Nazi youth of Germany. We can take a few harsh words but when it comes to physical attacks and not the latest with assassination attempts, it is time to put the liberals, democrats and any similar overly aggressive brown shirt organization in their place with lethal force if necessary to defend ourselves and our government. President is our president and we swore an oath to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies as guided by our president. BUT we also have the obligation to defend ourselves from physical in order to defend our country.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2017 10:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:38:45 -0400

Hey Jim, a service member should never ever berate a civilian or a military family member for anything and if they do they should be prepared to handle whatever action gets thrown at them. Hopefully they are smart enough to accept an article 15.
As far as one service member to another, in my opinion it's game on. In my early days in the military you got berated for everything no matter how squared away you were. I'm not for the new sensitive military and don't have much regard for people that are easily offended. I do respect everyone's opinion and right to believe what they want. You should be able to express your opinion, but you should also be prepared to handle the criticism as a result.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 23 at 2017 10:41 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:41:33 -0400

I'm sure it has been noted in the 112 responses so far, but read the first amendment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2017 11:37 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:37:23 -0400

Politics should not be a point of discussion in a military setting. For someone to berate anyone just for having a different political view is wrong. I myself do not mind having a pointed argument with the opposing side provide they can do this intelligently. But I never talked politics in uniform or on duty.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2017 10:47 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:47:04 -0400

I think so, as soldiers we defend the right of opinion that are counter to society or our own. As long as these people's statement don't invite others to be harmed physically or emotionally.
Discrimination because race, sexual orientation, preferred gender, or even lack thereof is an emotional discrimination.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 25 at 2017 12:52 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:52:57 -0400

Your final edit tells us where you are coming from. As far as your basic question, we all have 1st amendment rights and can fairly well say what we please, within those regulations written in the UCMJ and official DOD regulation.

Response by SSgt Ryan Sylvester made Jun 26 at 2017 1:20 PM

SSgt Ryan Sylvester — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:20:58 -0400

I don't berate anyone for how they vote, even now that I'm out of uniform. Voting is a personal choice, and while I may not agree with the choice and even tell a person why I don't agree with their choice, the simple fact is that they have every right to cast that ballot for the candidate they feel best represents their interests... even if that choice is the candidate they feel stands the best chance against the one they feel is most detrimental to their interests (as most voting is based on these days). That's a right I helped to protect when I raised my hand and swore the Oath, and I would be a hypocrite to bash someone for exercising that right.

It may not necessarily be a violation of 134, especially after an election is held. You aren't campaigning for candidate then. It might be construed as campaigning for a candidate prior to an election (part of why this whole secret ballot is a thing, and ought to be maintained as such), and an SM member needs to be cautious about how they are projecting or publicizing political opinions. But if you're in the uniformed service and insulting someone for exercising their personal right and civic duty in whatever manner they wish, you need to reconsider whether you're in the right profession.

Response by SPC Frank Farmer made Jun 29 at 2017 10:37 PM

SPC Frank Farmer — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 22:37:47 -0400

they can say what they want to say about Russia. but i voted just like i always have voted for the past 56 years with no problem. all this junk about Russias infulence on the Americans and there vote. Who do the crooked politicians think they are joking. can any one tell me of one person that was that was influenced.

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Jul 6 at 2017 1:26 PM

HN Chris Robinette — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:26:25 -0400

If aggressively behaving like the ANTIFA organization, they yes, that person deserves an article 134. It best to either ignore who they voted for or simply say I voted for (NAME) and leave it at that.

Response by SN Earl Robinson made Jul 6 at 2017 3:52 PM

SN Earl Robinson — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 15:52:32 -0400

Your vote is a private issue and no one else's business, I'd tell them to keep it themselves.

Response by CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw made Jul 8 at 2017 11:02 PM

CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:02:03 -0400

COL., I agree with your Two cent, even though it's worth more to me!!!

Response by LTC George Morgan made Jul 14 at 2017 5:58 PM

LTC George Morgan — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:58:02 -0400

There is a very old adage that appears to have been forgotten in the modern era:
"In the Military NEVER discuss Religion or Politics!" As true now as it has ever been. I learnt it from my Dad who served in both WWI & II.

Response by SGT David Petree made Jul 15 at 2017 7:30 PM

SGT David Petree — Sat, 15 Jul 2017 19:30:58 -0400

I stood up & raised my right hand , for them. They did not even let me know who was running , or when to vote. They did not want my vote . So I just fallowed the orders I got.

Response by Arsenio Ibay made Jul 16 at 2017 7:51 PM

Arsenio Ibay — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:51:05 -0400

It depends on whether the berating includes including the "why", which can easily slip into contemptible words easy enough. And what business is anyone to ask who someone voted for, it's a secret ballot after all. One could treat it like the Internet, don't feed the trolls. If need be, send it up the chain - if you don't stand up for yourself, who do you expect will?

Response by SSgt James Tadlock made Jul 16 at 2017 8:52 PM

SSgt James Tadlock — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:52:48 -0400

Keep your nose clean and trap shut.

Response by CPT Scott Sharon made Jul 17 at 2017 10:35 AM

CPT Scott Sharon — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:35:56 -0400

I think it is wrong for anyone to berate someone else for having a different opinion. I don't care whether they are in the military or not. I have friends on the opposite side of my political beliefs and I like to discuss issues with them just to see if I can understand why they believe what they do. Many people take these things way too seriously and actually get upset at others that have different opinions. We actually need different opinions to make our democratic system work better.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Jul 17 at 2017 6:06 PM

MSG Jay Jackson — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:06:34 -0400

I always felt that as a SM you still have all your rights just like a civilian. You just have to limit their use due to the restrictions placed on you by your service in the Armed Forces.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jul 17 at 2017 6:30 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:30:11 -0400

Personally? Never had much use for voters or their decisions. As a member of the military i NEVER VOTED simply because the result didn't matter to me, i still did my job.

Now as a civilian i do vote... i assume others vote their feelings just as i do... i just assume everyone else is wrong... :-) no problem!

Response by MSgt Jason McClish made Jul 17 at 2017 8:43 PM

MSgt Jason McClish — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 20:43:26 -0400

As I'm answering after the second edit, probably not many will read this, but here it goes anyway. It could get to a 134 violation if the commander deems necessary and it violates good order and discipline. I don't foresee too many commanders pursuing this avenue, but it would be well within their authority to do so. I'd say NJP via Article 15 would be the most offered from a unit commander. Most likely it'll be a supervisory counseling statement or similar. I will disagree with only one point you made. Respect for the POTUS is not a given, respect for the office and position is. Just like officers, NCOs, etc. An enlisted person salutes the rank and position, not the person. The person could be a total piece of crap, which sometimes happens. Same goes with NCOs, subordinates respect the NCO by standing at parade rest, etc when they are talking. Same can be said of the enlisted corps, not everyone is awesome and there are some awful examples out there.

Response by CWO3 Bill Carter made Jul 20 at 2017 7:09 PM

CWO3 Bill Carter — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:09:55 -0400

Traditionally in the military there are two subjects which are verboten: politics and religion. I was taught that by my Father who was also taught this by his Father. I do not feel either subject should be a discussion topic for those of us in uniform.

Response by Capt Karlos Nordinsifeller made Jul 22 at 2017 3:23 PM

Capt Karlos Nordinsifeller — Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:23:33 -0400

Berating a civilian for their political view is prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Stating your political opinion to a civilian is not. Stating your political views in uniform as a service representative is also a violation of the UCMJ.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 5:04 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:04:05 -0400

It is never correct to disrespect or be rude to people based on their political views or who they voted for. As an American we have the right to our own opinion be with political or otherwise. However, I do not agree with the statements that say military shouldn't have a political opinion and that we must respect who is the president regardless of whether we like them or not. Just as with all leaders in the military, respect is earned, not freely given. Yes, you need to respect their rank (That is good order and discipline). Yes, you need to follow their orders (as long as they are not illegal or unethical). But, there is nothing that requires you to blindly respect the person. I have never understood how we went from a country that thought of their military, police, firefighters, and medical as first rate citizens to a country that believes it is okay to kill police, shoot at firefighters or medical, and take the right of freedom away from those sworn to protect the country (i.e. military). Do we have a right to vote? Then we have a right to our own political opinion, views, and the right to discuss them amongst our friends and family. Just like I have the right to march in a parade! The only right I do not have is to affiliate the military with my political views (such as wearing my uniform during protests, or claiming that the military views one way or the other). My rights as an American don't stop just because I wear a uniform! I am simply held to a higher standard of discipline, and that means knowing when and where it is okay to express my political views.

Response by LTC Gerald Thomas made Jul 27 at 2017 10:36 AM

LTC Gerald Thomas — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:36:26 -0400

I am going to simply say that as a soldier, you respect the office and keep you political opinions to yourself. As a citizen respect the office and exercise your constitutional rights of protest and free speech. Anything other than that is a violation of the oath you took as a serviceman and in the other case criminal and un-American as a citizen

Response by Arsenio Ibay made Jul 27 at 2017 4:22 PM

Arsenio Ibay — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:22:04 -0400

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (being a pr*ck), all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (being a partisan pr*ck), and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

— 10 U.S.C. § 934

Response by Sgt Heriberto Salinas made Jul 27 at 2017 6:52 PM

Sgt Heriberto Salinas — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:52:38 -0400

I, for one, do not want to hear anyone complain who does not vote. PERIOD! I have a roommate who does not vote, and I never hear a political complaint out of him what so ever. Though, I am a bit of a conspiracy theoriest, I still think we should try our best to work with this POTUS, and help him drane the swamp.

Response by SPC James Jackson made Jul 29 at 2017 1:42 AM

SPC James Jackson — Sat, 29 Jul 2017 01:42:53 -0400

Perhaps this will help everyone out. "Public Affairs Guidance for Political Campaigns and Elections" document: http://tinyurl.com/d9ovwxh
I copied that link from a 2012 article on the army.mil site.

d9ovwxh

Response by PO3 Andrew Kelly made Jul 31 at 2017 1:39 PM

PO3 Andrew Kelly — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:39:45 -0400

IMO, yes that behavior is unacceptable regardless of who you are and more so for people wearing the uniform of our country. BTW, yes I include the POTUS in that statement.
THe UCMJ has a number of articles whose main purpose is to maintain good order and discipline and make it so our troops can function as a cohesive whole. Political backbiting has no place in that environment.
When I served back in the ancient days of the Reagan administration I could have cared less about politics other than if the CiC was placing us in harm's way and whether he was allowing us to stand proud and do our jobs. I can remember a few conversations with my mother who hated the man because of his domestic policies but at that time those did not matter to me as much as his foreign policy since it affected me more on a day to day basis while I served.

Response by SGT Stephen Jaffe made Aug 5 at 2017 10:28 PM

SGT Stephen Jaffe — Sat, 05 Aug 2017 22:28:33 -0400

Insulting or berating fellow service members for their political beliefs should not be tolerated. It takes away from the good order cohesiveness of your unit. I've been out of the military for almost 50 years so I'm not sure what an Article 134 is. I know when I was in, I didn't worry about politics or who the POTUS was. I just concentrated on doing my job and obeying my NCOs and officers.

Response by Sgt Carlos Barrera made Aug 7 at 2017 11:55 AM

Sgt Carlos Barrera — Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:55:59 -0400

Honestly, if you are not mature enough to understand that your candidate won or lost, then proceed to rub it on someone's face then you shouldn't be running your mouth.

Response by TSgt Mario Guajardo made Aug 10 at 2017 2:31 PM

TSgt Mario Guajardo — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:31:03 -0400

Politics has no place in the military

Response by Capt Michael Brown made Aug 11 at 2017 4:22 PM

Capt Michael Brown — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:22:52 -0400

I think we need to quit worrying about offending people. We are raising a generation of young people with the false reality that they have a legitimate beef against people who happen to offend them. I think we have an obligation to speak truth. Period. If someone is offended by truth, get over it. The military needs to resist this nonsense.
I do not condone harassment, but I went into the Marine Corps to become a warfighter. Not to engage in PC conversations. Many of the men I served with were crude, profane, and loud. Not many of them joined me in church on Sundays. But I loved my brothers. The main concern of this military is to be able to propagate a winning war and maintaining our readiness. I wish all the energy, time and money that is spent on sensitivity training would be directed into saving lives and winning wars. Offended people weaken this country.

Response by SPC Herb Jorgensen made Aug 11 at 2017 8:21 PM

SPC Herb Jorgensen — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:21:48 -0400

The military defends the Constitution of the United States,that all races ,religions and languages,and shall follow the orders of the POTUS.Now that said ,the current status of total disrespect and lack of actual respect of ones service is astounding.Now outright berating of another soldier can be an infraction in many cases if it diminishes unit cohesiveness and good order.Now yes there will be jabs from time to time but from what I see is out right bulling and baby tears.Give an opinion,leave it at that or pack your lunch box.
I shall defend the Contusion of the United States
against any and ALL enemies ,foreign and domestic,without reservation ,purpose of evasion.Period.
The soldier represents ALL,like it or not.Especially in uniform,as to be with out question.

Response by PO1 Timothy Organ made Aug 12 at 2017 7:50 AM

PO1 Timothy Organ — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:50:53 -0400

Think we spend way too much time coddling our delicate feelings and not enough time taking on real life issues. Lets face it... real life could care pess how you feel when it screws you in the buttocks.....

Response by PO1 Steve Whitten made Aug 12 at 2017 2:35 PM

PO1 Steve Whitten — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:35:30 -0400

The question as posed begs clarification. In uniform, in an official capacity? or in mufti, at the local watering hole? When in an official capacity, speaking out carries the possibility of UCMJ repercussions ranging from mild to incarceration. Out of uniform, off duty, while you might be a jerk for doing so, there is no muzzle on political behavior save when one states or implies they are speaking for the service.

Response by LTC George Morgan made Aug 14 at 2017 11:40 AM

LTC George Morgan — Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:40:06 -0400

The two "NEVER'S" of service life have and should never change.
1) NEVER discuss Religion outside of Church!
2) NEVER discuss Politics!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2017 7:37 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:37:45 -0400

I mean for the sake of good order and dicpline you leave politics at the door when it comes to the military.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Aug 17 at 2017 6:01 PM

CPT Larry Hudson — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:01:57 -0400

Absolutely. Politics has no place in open forum in military life

Response by Cpl Robert Robertson made Aug 18 at 2017 8:14 AM

Cpl Robert Robertson — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:14:07 -0400

Arguing is both an American right and a duty for a civilian However except in self defence or in defence of others hitting people is not polite

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Aug 20 at 2017 11:43 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:43:56 -0400

UCMJ? Maybe, personally my rule is you have to respect the office, even if you can not respect the man or woman. I have had little respect for several of our presidents, but I still paid the office the honor it was due, and did not engage in personal attacks. Not to say I would not call them wrong when I felt they were, but I did not, and will not attack them or their character.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Aug 26 at 2017 1:18 AM

SSG Dave Johnston — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:26 -0400

You have to separate yourself from yourself. If it requires you to create an entire new E-Identity that is separate from your GI Identity, than do it. Mr. Joe Snuffy and his opinion(s) are his, whereas PVT J. Snuffy and his (s)could be detrimental to PVT Snuffy, the Uniform, and the Service Branch he is a member of.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 27 at 2017 2:16 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:16:19 -0400

If someone "gets in your face" and berates you and hoping to get your ire up .. to the point of you coming back without
Thinking of what you say about their candidate(for example it's B.H.O.). You do have a right to defend your action but you should do so judiciously. Even as a civilian which I am now. I would say I don't this is the time and place and besides, no matter what I say will make any difference in your personal opinion.
So this wanna-be discussion is concluded. And walk away..

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 27 at 2017 2:40 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:40:09 -0400

SFC Franke: Political discussion was not my forte so I sidestepped it and kept my lip zippered.. If s'one pressured me.. I ignored them, s'times it infuriated them because I wouldn't get into it with them. Finally I got my wallet out and read the U.C.M.J. Articles about respect to the leadership and bad-mouthing them. I surmise there is one about bad-mouthing the opposing candidate.. not sure..? There was one more.. reading them their rights..
because once I did that there might be no whoah, can we back it up?" I'd had a few others that decided it was time to leave.. I'd tell them I'd hunt them down even to appear as hostile witnesses.. They were good Airmen and didn't want that they were ordered to appear as a hostile witness.. Fortunately it never got to reading s'one their rights. I wanted to be very sure.. before I'd do that. I didn't want a charge like false arrest if there be a chance for them to try that.. "I didn't mean it that way"or "I didn't say it like that"..

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2017 12:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:45:59 -0400

Yes, I think it does. That said, I don't think it actually deserves punishment unless it's done in a really inappropriate setting. I also find myself really unimpressed with those kinds of people because federal service members are supposed to present themselves as apolitical (at least while in uniform).

Response by PFC Daniel Starrett made Sep 3 at 2017 9:16 AM

PFC Daniel Starrett — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 09:16:56 -0400

After twenty years of being out, I do not remember the different articles by number. However, I do remember the common ones by description, and I would have to say that what you describe, falls underneath disrespect and conduct in becoming.... Both of which, in my time at least, were punishable under the UCMJ.

I personally believe that any soldier, regardless of rank or position, that bad mouths another person because they do not agree with them, is not only being rude and disrespectful, they are harassing and intimidating them as well; and should be held liable, at the least, for conduct unbecoming, which can hold consequences from a slap on the wrist all the way up to court martial, depending on the offense.

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made Sep 4 at 2017 11:55 AM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:55:44 -0400

Whom you voted for is your right and choice. I just don't believe why people would berate others who voted for the other party's candidate. A comment of "this POTUS sucks on foreign policy" is fine by me, but if you say this POTUS, or the previous one sucks on every idea, policy, etc. Then I'm going to ask you either why you voted for him/her, did you vote at all, or next time review you choices of politicans running for office before you choose one and vote for that choice. With fellow service members, I will always leave politics at the base gate, where it belongs. We're in the military, not politics.

Response by SPC Thomas Hobbs made Sep 4 at 2017 10:32 PM

SPC Thomas Hobbs — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 22:32:58 -0400

As for officers, it could easily fall under "888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS". "916. ARTICLE 116. RIOT OR BREACH OF PEACE" loosely covers the "aggressive" part of your question, but "917. ARTICLE 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES" pretty much covers your question in general. So, you have the right idea, but the wrong chapter.

Response by SGT Loren Hammons made Sep 5 at 2017 8:23 PM

SGT Loren Hammons — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:23:22 -0400

The military should never be political. Soldiers serve the people of this country and their elected representative. A professional soldier will respect the office of the President and know the damage caused by disrespecting that office. As with Officers, the rank is respected. I have strong opinions and now that I have been out a while I see the maturity that our soldiers have over those who never served. More Specifically the ANTIFA crowd and college crowd. Professional Soldiers lead the way.

Response by MGySgt Jerry Suarez made Sep 8 at 2017 6:24 PM

MGySgt Jerry Suarez — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:24:43 -0400

No it shouldn't.

Response by MGySgt Jerry Suarez made Sep 8 at 2017 6:29 PM

MGySgt Jerry Suarez — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:29:44 -0400

If people voted for someone you didn't like or want then maybe you should think twice of why you are serving and one of the reasons is to preserve democracy. As a retired MGySgt with over 30yrs of service I always told my marines if we are all agreeing all the time someone isn't thinking. Just because someone voted for someone you didn't like isn't a free card to belittle people. Always be respectful because you must remember that whoever you chose or voted on not all people agreed with you either

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 9 at 2017 8:01 AM

1SG Patrick Sims — Sat, 09 Sep 2017 08:01:28 -0400

JIM---It's a simple problem---Regardless of who you voted for, you should respect each others opinion---that being said---In my day arguments like this use to be settled by a punch in the mouth.

Response by SSgt Mike Finch made Sep 10 at 2017 10:46 AM

SSgt Mike Finch — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:46:03 -0400

There was something in there about supporting and defending the constitution of the United States. This comes BEFORE obeying the orders, yada yada yada. IMHO, anyone who voted for Hilliary is not fit to serve. The a visible, vocal portion of the democrat party appear to be seeking the overthrow of the duly elected government by unconstitutional means. Take from that what you will.

Response by SGT Andrew Dejesus made Sep 20 at 2017 4:06 PM

SGT Andrew Dejesus — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:06:47 -0400

As a service member we are held to higher standards then everyone else. We are not civilians, we should not be saying or doing anything that makes the military look bad because in turn that makes the country look bad. We as a whole should look to unifying everyone no matter who they voted for or their opinion. We are all Americans, no matter their skin color or anything we are all brothers and sisters in this country.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Sep 22 at 2017 1:47 AM

SPC Franklin McKown — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 01:47:10 -0400

No but CAN get an article 15 for disrupting your mission requirements,and dereliction of duty.

Response by SSgt Christopher Moore made Sep 22 at 2017 2:11 AM

SSgt Christopher Moore — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 02:11:38 -0400

Generally, I would say no. Article 134 seems like a wasted resource to punish someone for a social media rant. Now if someone went off on his commander or the mayor of their city, or a statesman using profanity or race-based rhetoric, I'd say that's probably grounds for an Article 15. I didn't support Bush (W), but when I was introduced to Myspace and later Facebook, I made certain that I made no inappropriate remarks on social media about American leadership, to include anyone who voted for them.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Sep 24 at 2017 5:18 PM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 17:18:09 -0400

I don't even find that type of behavior acceptable as a civilian so I certainly wouldn't find it acceptable for a servicemen. If it takes an article 134 to impress that on one then I can see its use. Show some dignity while in uniform or when you use a military designation on any publication. I don't like social media sites for any type of military expression at all. You want to identify yourself by name, fine. Making those types of comments or involving yourself on social media in conversations of that nature, I don't find respectful of your uniform or service.

Response by LCDR Rolland Fitch made Sep 26 at 2017 6:40 AM

LCDR Rolland Fitch — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:40:31 -0400

When I was on active duty, I tried to govern my behavior about politics to the Hatch Act. The same rules that cover civilian employees. That meant that I checked my partisan politics at the door.
It would be wrong to use a position of authority to advocate to those serving with me what they should do.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2017 1:20 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:20:54 -0400

I never discuss politics at work in my job as a DoD Civilian. It's not the place. If people try to I'm polite but then try and direct the conversation to work, or sports.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2017 12:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:57:31 -0400

SSG,
Let me start off by saying I completely agree with your sentiment. People exercising their right to vote should never be targeted for their choice simply because is weas not how someone else voted - if we all voted the same, we wouldn't have to vote. The freedom to have our own ideas and opinions is what this country is founded on, I believe.

As far as the legal part of your question:
I would say you could certainly have a case that it is punishable under Article 134, if you can reasonably demonstrate that the behavior is damaging to the overall welfare or readiness of either the victim's (one being defamed) or the offender's (one defaming) unit(s). You could also try telling the individual to stop, and if they refuse to, then it's a failure to follow instruction - infinitely easier to stick paper on, if that's your goal. Getting this accomplished will, in large part, depend on the support of your commander (or his commander, if the offender is your commander).

As a final note, as a leader, I would hope you know better than to go around trying to throw the book at people because you don't like how they speak to each other. There are other methods for addressing this sort of behavior - most involve you standing up and saying that you, personally, will not tolerate your soldiers berating others, and that their views on each other's politics are not welcome. You may come away from that conversation with egg on your face - but a botched attempt to UCMJ someone could be a career killer for you as much as for someone else, and will likely lose you the respect of your Joes, and/or your superiors.

Hope this helped,
2LT Crowley

Response by Marlene Hessler made Oct 5 at 2017 11:21 AM

Marlene Hessler — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:21:07 -0400

It's a fine line because berating or insulting the voters inevitably leads to the one that was, or was not, voted for. If that can be avoided, there's no violation.

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Oct 5 at 2017 5:54 PM

PO2 Louis Fattrusso — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 17:54:07 -0400

As a person serving in the military you should always show respect to the President. He is the Commander in Chief.

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Oct 12 at 2017 4:07 PM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:07:03 -0400

Isn't "Openly and aggressively" attacking ANYONE, civilian or fellow military, conduct unbecoming?

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Oct 15 at 2017 12:32 AM

SPC Franklin McKown — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:32:16 -0400

The Green Machine don't HAVE politics ,JUST the mission

Response by SN James MacKay made Oct 15 at 2017 8:22 AM

SN James MacKay — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:22:01 -0400

I think that common sense would rule here. Expressing disagreement in a civil manner shouldn't be a problem, but sometimes such discussions can come to in-your-face shouting matches, or more. That's when would become a disciplinary matter......When I was a young Sailor, we were too damn buys doing our jobs to worry about such things.

Response by CPO James Annand made Oct 26 at 2017 3:15 PM

CPO James Annand — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:15:40 -0400

I like this question, but it brings up problems that have never really been answered in the first place. This isn't about party, votes or having diverse opinions. It is about command climate and work environment. It sounds simple but it's not. It is the same problem with any recognised subgroup, by gender, ethnicity or culture. What it comes down to is "I love my country, I love my God, I lovey family, I choose to vote based on my values. Why does that make me 'more right than the soldier or sailor beside me? If I am free to believe and worship and love, why aren't they? This is Animal Farm..."some pigs are better than others"...No they are not. We are all equal pigs. So when it comes to berating a person about there political choices what does that tell everyone? It says that this place has a "preferred political view.". That's great if I agree, but, what if I don't? Does being in a majority in a unit give the right to form an unofficial political philosophy for all? Public berating is a form of punishment. It is humiliation. That's kind of a no brainier. We don't berate people for doing what we want do we? This is where we need to look at what berating does to the people around you? The answer is related to the problem of sexual harrassment and descrimanation. When ever I go to a class, training or a talk by the CO on harrassment, the statement always seems to change from men need to stop this which is abandoned by mutual acknowledgement, "we know that....of course everybody should be treated with dignity to more of a blame oriented, "all you have to do is tell us." Cause if you only told us, we could do something about it. Thats not the problem. The problem is "Why aren't you somebody who I could tell about what's going on?" Harassment of wen is a mens problem, not a woman's problem. What,is we should tell the shooting victims to make they crazy guy stop pulling the trigger? Why should the fix be, tell the victim of harrassment to say something to make them stop? Why should the guy who has wrongly been singled out for berating due to a political view be expected to "suck it up buttercup.?" If you treat me like that over my political choices, which I am entitled to have and exercise just as you are, then how can I trust you not to use what I tell you against me when I have a big problem and I need help?". Of course you all say, I would always help. I would never... It's to late, your message has been sent. My trust was blown when you chose to berate me in public to satisfy your political confidence. I may not have minded when it happened. All in fun right? but then I didn't have my heart ripped out by a dear John letter then like I do now. And you can't go back and undo it. If you are making crude comments about women or comparing Sargent Hottie to the St Pauli Girl poster on the wall, it may not bother then, but after some Bucketthead has been harrassing me or worse because I won't date them, and, making my life hell because of gender, now those things don't seem so tolerable anymore. So it boils down to what kind of a leader you want to be, someone who keeps the door open for when you need them or somebody precieved as a person who is only there for the right party? If it's as simple as, leave the party Bible at home so the guy beside me doesn't feel alienated, then we can count on each other after our heart is ripped out and I want to swallow a bullet after we come back because war and combat will not leave me be. Preception may not be actual reality, but it is all we have to go on. Good leadership means being able to take care of the whole division, by not putting opinionated walls between us or burning Bridges over a vote.

Response by Cpl Stuart Blankenship made Oct 27 at 2017 6:17 PM

Cpl Stuart Blankenship — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:17:47 -0400

I joined in the reagan era and 95%of the time you never heard or saw what others thought about politics. Granted this back before cell phones and social media but for the most part no one really cared at least none that I knew about. I didn't hide my disgust with the GOP even back in those days but we didn't have the soap box mentality that everyone has theses days, those that were close to me knew how I felt that was enough.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Oct 27 at 2017 6:32 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:32:51 -0400

If I was still serving no doubt I wouldn't share my views.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2017 12:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:10:30 -0400

No! We still enjoy the freedom of speech, with a few stipulations. Is the SM in uniform? Is the SM using government resources for the action? Would it be clear to a reasonable person that the statements of the SM are not representative of the military? I believe SMs should be politically active. It is our civic duty. I believe that political discourse should be respectful but disrespectful comments should not be illegal.

Response by PO3 Don Goracke made Oct 31 at 2017 3:02 PM

PO3 Don Goracke — Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:02:31 -0400

Romans 13:1 says respect Government so when you don’t, you hate Our God and country

Response by TSgt James Carson made Oct 31 at 2017 5:36 PM

TSgt James Carson — Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:36:03 -0400

Whom ever one votes for is their right and can be their mistake. It's still their right to vote for whom they want in government. Be grown up about it. There are so many out there who cannot be grown up about unless they get what they want. Life doesn't always go the way you want it to go. Hope they are grown up or are not mentally ill as it worries me at time in California. A person's vote doesn't deserve disciplinary action.

Response by LCpl Stephen Arnold made Nov 2 at 2017 1:37 PM

LCpl Stephen Arnold — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:37:29 -0400

My Colonel gave me the best quote when I asked him about the Kerry/Bush election of '04. "I respect the office of the President of the United States and all it represents." I took notice.

Response by PO3 Timothy "Tim" Dzurnak made Nov 3 at 2017 4:24 AM

PO3 Timothy "Tim" Dzurnak — Fri, 03 Nov 2017 04:24:34 -0400

Our Vow is to defend the Constitution ..Politics should be left out of it..granted POTUS my be the highest CO.But anyone can disobey orders if they feel the justification.So if it is our defense of the constitution that is our code,not politicians,or political views.leave that crap out of it.

Response by SGT George G. made Nov 3 at 2017 8:21 AM

SGT George G. — Fri, 03 Nov 2017 08:21:33 -0400

I never gave politics a thought while in the military. As a result of this latest election for POTUS I have unfriended over 25 folks on Facebook. Supposedly my friend.

Response by Sgt Michael Knaus made Nov 9 at 2017 12:57 PM

Sgt Michael Knaus — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:57:05 -0500

Treating others with disrespect or distain because of their political choice is no differnt than treating them differently because of their race, , choice of religion, sex, sexual orentation etc. I believe that military members should always remember that they freely joined the US military in order to serve and protect our way of life, all of it's citizens and the US Constitution.

Response by Chris Pinterich made Nov 10 at 2017 12:54 PM

Chris Pinterich — Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:54:32 -0500

Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the US Armed Forces, maybe... you said it well when mentioning military bearing.

Response by SPC Larry Weigel Jr. made Nov 12 at 2017 9:47 AM

SPC Larry Weigel Jr. — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:47:06 -0500

Even now it really doesn't matter who voted for who, that's their personal business. All the violence regarding electronics is childish play ground semantics that will solve nothing. The way I see things, then and now, is do your job and keep your politics to yourself. If active duty personnel act in a manner contrary to UCMJ or other directives then they should face disciplinary action.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Nov 12 at 2017 7:51 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:51:54 -0500

Recall when Bill Clinton was elected one of my troops said in the office that he would never do what Bill and the Bit@# told him to do. Took a short counseling session to explain that this was an inappropriate comment for someone in uniform

Response by Chris Smith made Nov 14 at 2017 8:15 AM

Chris Smith — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:15:40 -0500

As a civilian who has never served, I am uniquely unqualified to comment on political expression in the military; but I do have a corrolary question.... Do most of you think that the advent of the Internet and social media platforms has changed the frequency with which military personnel express their political opinions to one another or to civilians, or is it about the same now, but just more public because of the digital platforms available?

In my personal journey, I’ve been a democrat and a republican, a liberal and a conservative, and today I describe myself as a “liberative conservatarian”, meaning that I am socially conservative in my personal values, but fairly libertarian in my political values - with individual liberty being my highest personal political value. I am typically very open about expressing my opinions in that context, but out of respect for this discussion, and because “individual liberty” probably has different implications and relevance in the military world than in the civilian world, l will keep those opinions to myself here.

Politics aside, thank you all for your service.

Response by PV2 Mark Kleiman made Nov 16 at 2017 1:02 PM

PV2 Mark Kleiman — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:02:01 -0500

I believe tthat that cricizing the person only increases the divide we are now experiencing across the country. The conversation needs to be about issues, values and goals. I suggest that most people feel similarly about goals, e.g. People need health care to make for a healthy society with everyone obtaining both preventive medicine as well as accessibility to care before things become complicated and expensive.

Having discussions about how to accomplish goals rather than right and wrong or demonizing the Other is both more constructive as well as respectful of everyone's particular needs, concerns and fears. Finding vehicles and the skills to do this is the major issue as media and politicians divide us with negative characterizations of individuals rather than dialogues on the issues with those who have other opinions.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2017 1:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:04:25 -0500

So many in uniform talking mad ugly words on FB while still serving, yes you have an opinion but it should not be on any social media period or voiced. I do wonder why no one is doing anything about it. I guess when I served it was very strict on some things and other things were ignored maybe its business as usual.

Response by MSG William Hesser made Nov 19 at 2017 9:19 PM

MSG William Hesser — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:19:43 -0500

Even though the POTUS is our Commander in Chief, when we are at war, the President still deserves the respect of the office. This was done when Barack Obama was in office the same with both of the Bush's. Several of our presidents in the current past has shown better leadership than others, but still they are basically the boss.
As far as discussing politics in the work place. I have always worked under the attitude that it is to be left at the door. Some business' have it as a actual 'no no' and you may be fired for it. I think the NFL should use this approach to get to the bottom of their problem since the football field is their work place.
If you want to discuss politics, it should always be off the job site and never at work no matter what your think of Hillary of Trump.

Response by CPO Keith Morgan made Nov 21 at 2017 10:10 AM

CPO Keith Morgan — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:10:48 -0500

My answer is yes. The POTUS is also CINC. Therefore he falls in with Chain of Command. Disrespecting him is Disrespecting a Senior Officer thereby 134 or Art.92 would apply.

Response by LCpl Mike Zacher made Nov 23 at 2017 6:00 PM

LCpl Mike Zacher — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:00:35 -0500

ucmj-- no rights no political views

Response by SPC Herb Jorgensen made Nov 23 at 2017 8:24 PM

SPC Herb Jorgensen — Thu, 23 Nov 2017 20:24:15 -0500

It is fine to have an adult conversation but to berate or degrade a fellow service member by their choice is unbecoming if it escalates.It merely shows how the military has lost a tremendous amount of common respect in the ranks these days.

Response by SPC Sean Martin made Nov 24 at 2017 11:09 AM

SPC Sean Martin — Fri, 24 Nov 2017 11:09:22 -0500

You believe what you want to believe. I don't have to agree, and neither do you. That's the beauty of this country. Acting like and ass, because someone doesn't think like you (politically) is just stupid on your part. Running your mouth, is one thing; if you get physical due to your belief, then UCMJ action should apply! Opinions are like assholes; we ALL have them and they ALL stink!

Response by PO1 Neil Brennan made Nov 24 at 2017 8:50 PM

PO1 Neil Brennan — Fri, 24 Nov 2017 20:50:23 -0500

It's a shame this would even be up for debate.

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Nov 25 at 2017 1:31 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Sat, 25 Nov 2017 13:31:23 -0500

Your best bet is to worry more about everyday life and not some president you should be thankful that have a job and a secure pay check when I was Forced out after 16.5 years hoping
That I been retired and do the Job that I do now. so keep your self in check and start focusing on your career besides I wish I was serving my country.
SSG Mark Franzen
USA Vet

Response by SPC Michelle Keane made Nov 27 at 2017 11:00 PM

SPC Michelle Keane — Mon, 27 Nov 2017 23:00:17 -0500

My experience with extreme political responses come from when I was part of a Veterans group online. During a political discussion/informal survey about who you where voting for and why, I stated that even though I disagreed with the politics of both Presidents Bush, that I felt they where basally good people who cared about the country in their own ways, however, I didn't get the same feeling about trump and wasn't going to vote for him because of that. The level of hostility I receive was just ridiculously extreme. I was called names like B*t@h, Wh***, Slut. I was told I should leave the country because I was a traitor and didn't deserve to live here. I was told that I should kill myself. I had people calling my military service into question. I finally left the group when I was threatened with death and rape by more than one person. The people making these comments where a mix of Veterans, military family members and active duty personnel.
While I had the option of leaving the group when they went to far, there are many situations where leaving isn't an option. In those cases, someone saying "I don't understand how you could vote for that person, they suck" doesn't reach the level where there should be UCMJ action. However, someone making the types of comments I was subjected to would create a very hostile environment and they should most defiantly be subjected to UCMJ action.

Response by SFC John Fourquet made Nov 28 at 2017 9:15 AM

SFC John Fourquet — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:15:33 -0500

We do not criminalized politics! The behavior you described is wrong, but it is free speech. Just keep your politics out of your miltary duties and don't use mititary status to support or oppose politicians or political causes.

Response by SFC Jeffrey Franklin made Dec 7 at 2017 3:40 PM

SFC Jeffrey Franklin — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:40:16 -0500

I believe on post and now with social media as an active service member you should be aware of what you say about political leaders can be punishable. However there is normal heckling and then disrespect. There is a fine line. I remember at ft Bragg when the anti Pres Clinton stickers were popular. All soldiers were told to remove them

Response by Cpl Robert Robertson made Dec 9 at 2017 12:42 PM

Cpl Robert Robertson — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 12:42:01 -0500

while you should vote to openly support or oppose a political party while on active is a no no and always has been rules of the game simple

Response by SP5 Larry Morris made Dec 9 at 2017 2:21 PM

SP5 Larry Morris — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:21:40 -0500

such is life can't get along with everyone

Response by PO3 Steven Guess made Dec 10 at 2017 8:53 PM

PO3 Steven Guess — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:53:15 -0500

Has the military really gotten so bad that this is even a question ? If so then we as a country are done . Very very sad .

Response by SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra made Dec 10 at 2017 9:38 PM

SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:38:35 -0500

If you're a leader in the US Military and you berate a service member for exercising the rights we swear to uphold, then you should face some kind of consequence for it. I don't care who you voted for or why. It has little bearing on whether you're good soldier. I have a friend(former crew chief flight trainer/squad leader) who is a democrat and voted for Hillary. Aggressively berated Trump, his followers, and his policies. We debated. We're still friends. He still served honorably and so did I. I would still go on missions with him if we were called upon to do so, and would trust him with my life as I have so many times before.

Do NOT let politics divide our armed forces. The American people, who are our bosses, demand better than that, and it is our duty to ensure we deliver.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2017 8:03 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:03:03 -0500

I would say it depends on the beration. If the SM decides to take it too far and harass an individual then it could lead to a UCMJ violation. A polite discussion however should lead to that.

Response by SGT Charles Bartell made Dec 11 at 2017 1:54 PM

SGT Charles Bartell — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:54:24 -0500

If some one is Berating or insulting people in Unaform for the way somone voted ( Eather way ) They should be Given The Art 134. If the Person doing this is of a higher rank or position they should in my mind be busted in rank. One more grade the the 134 calls for. I have seen this kind of crap for years in the Army and on the out side. It is stupid. I have freinds that are lefty dems to hard core right. we all have agreed to talk politics with each other, But no one is allowed to be a Jerk about it. Now if you get BUTT hert over some one ideas that is on you. Talking politics on duty is a big NO NO any ways. After work fine.

Response by LTC Ronald Stephens made Dec 18 at 2017 12:24 PM

LTC Ronald Stephens — Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:24:25 -0500

When someone, in this example a voter, is faced with two poor choices as we were faced with in 2016 and they don't want to write in a candidate which might as well be not voting at all, all one can do is examine what qualifications each of the candidates has or doesn't have and vote for the person who they believe will do the least damage to the Republic. I think it was James Madison who wrote in THE FEDERALIST "four years is insufficient time to do irreparable damage to the Republic". You have to choose the candidate who is least likely to consider that a challenge.

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Dec 21 at 2017 3:41 PM

1SG James Kelly — Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:41:52 -0500

It is bad manners.
Shut up and soldier.

Response by PFC Scott Spann made Dec 22 at 2017 12:31 PM

PFC Scott Spann — Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:31:14 -0500

Article 134 of the UCMJ deals with Adultery, it has nothing to do with what you are all talking about.

Response by SGT Brianna MacKinnon made Dec 23 at 2017 5:25 PM

SGT Brianna MacKinnon — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:25:09 -0500

I am a Conservative, in other words, Transgender Republican. I make it a point to NEVER berate or insult anyone for their political beliefs. I even have a t-shirt with the following message on it: Transgender Veteran: I fought for your right to hate me (in Infantry Blue :) ).

I HAVE, however, gotten quite a bit of flak for MY political views and believe it or not it was NOT mainly from supposedly Transphobic Republicans but from my fellow Transgender Sisters with a very definite belief that as someone who is Transgender I am required to vote a straight Democratic Ticket. So much so that by at least 2 of them I was referred to as a Quisling. This actually impressed me enough not to be offended (I don't get offended) because this is a term that most people don't even know. I do know what a Quisling is because I love Military History.

Response by SSgt Thomas Hirschey made Dec 30 at 2017 4:08 PM

SSgt Thomas Hirschey — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:08:13 -0500

It’s hard for me to understand how someone could be that unprofessional in the first place. Do these idiots understand that we sign on the dotted line to defend our rights and freedoms and then how ignorant it is to try and take always someone else’s just because they don’t see things the same way they do? It doesn’t matter anymore who someone voted for, it’s over let it go! In 4 or 8 years they can try again. You can’t make everyone happy.

Response by SSG Robert Edwards made Dec 30 at 2017 5:35 PM

SSG Robert Edwards — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 17:35:52 -0500

Once rump was ele ted to CIC, tp speak ill of him is punishable under the UCMJ. Ms Clinton is not an elected official.

Response by PO3 Scot Fahey made Dec 30 at 2017 8:00 PM

PO3 Scot Fahey — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 20:00:41 -0500

Article 134 of the UCMJ is a catch all, a study in vagueness. It means what ever your CO needs to mean, and has upheld Constitutional review. Simple Answer, Stay off your Skippers short list

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jan 1 at 2018 6:18 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 06:18:55 -0500

Should people get in my space and start trying to get me fired up With anti potus speech, I tell them you made your choice and I made mine, my choice was elected end of discourse. Now if you’ll please vacate my space and go sob into your cry towel and I can do whatever I had been doing before you violated my space. Thank you and goodbye(read riddance)..
oh.. are you still here? I thought this discourse was terminated... I can either stand my ground or move on myself.. no need to continue a lost discourse..

Response by SGT Felicia King made Jan 1 at 2018 6:46 AM

SGT Felicia King — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 06:46:58 -0500

I think you’re always supposed to be nice, no matter who you are. The internet seemed to have taken that away. People get that liquid courage juice through their fingertips while typing because it’s not face to face. But they generally would never say what they type to another’s face. And you’re right, there’s no difference in the treatment and disdain as to when President Obama was first elected compared to when President Trump was elected. It’s just coming from the other group.

Response by LCpl James Robertson made Jan 6 at 2018 6:46 PM

LCpl James Robertson — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 18:46:36 -0500

During Watergate, President. Richard Nixon was the Commander-in-Chief, during Cease Fire we were called back to Vietnam in 1973., a new album came out by James Brown the soul singer: the song were titled: "You can have Watergate but give me some bucks and I'll be straight." aboard ship that song were banned and confiscated, even in music you could not say anything bad about the President.

Response by SSG John Passmore made Jan 8 at 2018 6:59 PM

SSG John Passmore — Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:59:08 -0500

Openly and aggressively berating or insulting anybody warrants an Article 134 violation. Period! As far as being political, know enough about politics and the Constitution to know when someone appointed over you is giving you an illegal order. If the President gives you an unlawful order, don't just remember the part about obeying his orders, more importantly remember that you swore to support and defend the Constitution. American ideals and purpose are far more legitimate that a person who seeks to usurp the Constitution. Forget Fox News and CNN; Read the Constitution and History!

Response by MSgt Jim Bain made Jan 13 at 2018 12:11 PM

MSgt Jim Bain — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:11:52 -0500

The President of the United States, no matter who, where he or she comes from, what color they are, or where they go to Church, should mean nothing to someone wearing the uniform. They are the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces.....period, and should be respected as such. The majority elected Trump, you can argue about who should have won the election till the sun don't shine, it's done....don't like it, 3 more years folks, then you can do it all over again. Personally, I hope a respected person, with a political, AND military background is the next President, and doesn't know what twitter means!

Response by PO2 David Allender made Jan 14 at 2018 7:22 PM

PO2 David Allender — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:22:16 -0500

By being in the service, we fall under SecDef, who is directly under the President. Therefore we should keep our political opinions to ourselves. By doing this we don't upset the apple cart, and we stay out of trouble with the White House. Just my view. Everybody is entitled to a view though.

Response by SPC Brian Aranda made Jan 15 at 2018 9:31 AM

SPC Brian Aranda — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:31:34 -0500

Service members have a higher responsibility to be respectful PERIOD
Let's look at it another way...Would it be okay for a soldier (sailor, airman or marine) to berate and belittle someone for the way they dress? Eat? What movie they watch?
It's not the type of thing anyone should do, much less a service member.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2018 6:26 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:26:17 -0500

Here is my 2 cents, you were the uniform and identify on social media then you may not express political views. Now in private area not with sailors of lower rank sure discuss it. When they win they are commander and chief and it is against ucmj to talk against or disrespect them. I also disagreed with people that thought it was ok to put the President picture up in work space.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Jan 22 at 2018 2:11 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:11:26 -0500

While you are in the US Military, you can vote that is your Constitutional Right. What you cannot do is to campaign, run for political office or publically speak on behalf of a political candidate running for political office while in uniform. (US Code Title 10)....The UCMJ was created to protect the servicemember contrary to popular belief. What you do and say both in word and deed will reflect the organization that you are assigned to and can affect your career choices. What am saying is that if you got something to say, stay in your lane. If you stray or come out of your lane...you are going to get bit. Remember...It all reflects back to you who serve, your unit, your family and to the military as a whole.
When I was in the military, folks who were in the same section, squad, platoon talked to one another and ya, we all shared those viewpoints, however we stayed in our lane. We did not go out looking for a fight with our fellow countryman. And if those who did, our First Segeant had some real good extra duty details just for those with that kind of energy.

I advise you to Stay in your lane.

Ask yourself, "What can I afford to do?" or "What impact will this affect my unit, my family and my military/civilian community?"

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Jan 22 at 2018 2:19 PM

LCpl Cody Collins — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:29 -0500

I'm torn about this question. I guess if one wants to destroy their relationships with family and friends because of politics, that is their right. Now If they are active duty and currently serving in the military, Then for them to be rate a fellow soldier in any capacity over politics then I think the UCMJ comes into play. Because in the End who ever you voted for, you better be ready to fight for this country. Like Jesus told his apostle's, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Jan 24 at 2018 8:47 AM

PO2 Mike Vignapiano — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500

It’s bullying so yes it does deserve it. BUT, before Obama, most Active Military are more concerned with their immediate chain of command. Since Obama, Many are definitely more concerned since he literally hand cuff to our military and we were sitting ducks everywhere we went because he refused to allow us to engage any time we were fired upon.

Response by SSG Dale London made Jan 25 at 2018 1:16 AM

SSG Dale London — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:16:03 -0500

You don't need to go to article 134 here. Article 117 - Provoking speeches or gestures covers this pretty well. This article may be referred to as the "now play nice, children" article because you can get busted under it just for flipping somebody off or calling them a name.
This is a handy article to remember when dealing with other services because it relates to behavior between any people subject to the UCMJ -- including certain DOD civilians.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2018 10:49 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:49:21 -0500

I understand your point and question. I think that behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated in the military or civilian atmosphere. There should be consequences to address the behavior. I call that political Bullying. Everybody is entitled to the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, we all must learn to be respectful regardless of our opinions of others or the situation.

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made Jan 29 at 2018 1:20 PM

SPC Steven Depuy — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:20:29 -0500

To me, the only way someone knows who you voted for is if you tell them. I don't think anyone should berate anyone for their beliefs, but if your worried about it, don't talk about it.

Response by TSgt Neil Rosen made Feb 1 at 2018 4:06 PM

TSgt Neil Rosen — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 16:06:15 -0500

As a veteran, I believe it is in violation on the UCMJ, especially if it happens while in uniform. You're allowed to support whatever candidates you choose. However, you can NOT campaign in public or attend rallies in uniform. If the insulting happens at rallies while in uniform, the offender(s) could be courts-martialed.

Response by SPC Vincenzo Lettieri made Feb 9 at 2018 4:06 PM

SPC Vincenzo Lettieri — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:06:46 -0500

I have always held very strong political beliefs, often at odds with my colleagues as we all know the service slants right pretty far. There is a difference between an intelligent, private political discussion among peers while in the service and having that same discussion in the public sphere.

Not once did I make my political views public knowledge while in the service. I think what we're seeing now in the current political climate just gets exacerbated when we all offer our opinions on social media. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone (servicemembers or civilians alike) make broad generalizations about the political leanings of everyone in the military because SFC Uncle Joe told them that's how we all think. I think the current stand-off between the FBI and POTUS illustrates the dangers of civil servants making their political leanings known. Maybe we all know the FBI is full of professionals who, on the whole, would not let their political leanings interfere with a federal investigation, but the public can only rely on what they hear.

Above all though, we all swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and not any one political party, and certainly not to one single president. I think President Trump is a disaster, probably a traitor, and am glad I never had to serve under him. I can say that now as a civilian. If I were in the military, I would not say one thing about him, except that he is my President and the Commander in Chief, because that was the will of the American people, and that's how we all decided we would govern ourselves. I would obey every lawful order he issued, and frankly, the only time my political opinion would matter would be when I enter the voting booth. Plenty of people around me while I served found President Obama detestable. While I didn't agree with them, I always respected the fact that they just kept their head down and did their job with very little griping about it. That's the example I would follow.

In short, yes, I think UCMJ is an acceptable way to deal with those who want to make their own or other's political belief an issue in the military. I can't even imagine a unit that would allow their soldiers to berate people for the way that they vote. Frankly, if someone is so biased that they can't even have a civil discourse with people they disagree with, maybe they'd be better off shilling door to door for X political party than being a trusted leader in one of America's finest institutions.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2018 2:21 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Feb 2018 02:21:21 -0500

I voted while in the service always in private and never discussed politics at all. If you allow politics to permeate a command environment you end up with a toxic environment. In the only command this happened in my 17 years before medical retirement, it created a poisonous and fractured command. It started with the CO and bleed through to the lowest ranks. To the point where JAG officers were retained as well personal attorneys for the things said and done.
While in the service our agreement whether you look at it as a job, a calling, a commitment, however is to receive orders, carry out orders, and pass on orders to ensure our mission is accomplished. To never surrender or embarrass our brothers or sisters, and damn sure never end up on T.V. embarrassing our country.
I was forced to retire in 2016 and the sailors and soldiers that I worked with at that time were with the right leaders and mentors were able to stay clean and in shape and get the mission accomplished. Never caring or thinking about politics while in uniform, because it’s not what we do. We see the pictures and sometimes depending on how high or low or lazy or involved we are we get to change those pictures and remember a new name. Things such as like or dislike what comes from those pictures we can’t change and to discuss or mention would be to distract from our true 24/7/365 mission to make sure as many as possible make it back as whole as possible, because the guarantee is that every single service member who makes it to their first duty station will and likely through Basic will know personally a soldier or sailor who is a folded flag for their parents.

Response by HN Chris Robinette made Feb 23 at 2018 1:33 AM

HN Chris Robinette — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 01:33:55 -0500

Politics has no place in the Military but ethics does.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Feb 26 at 2018 4:40 PM

SSG Brian G. — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:40:40 -0500

It's conduct unbecoming of a service member. Politics is a quagmire but we are a volunteer force that is supposed to have honor, integrity and discipline and how does it look when a service member from whatever their chosen branch goes on an adolescent tirade about a given vote about a system that we all swore oaths to defend from all enemies.

Remember that each and every voting able citizen used their right as laid out in the Constitution to vote. That is their right just as our vote is ours. Who are we to second guess, let alone berate that? We are supposed to be above that petty garbage. When a person engages in that level of assinnine stupidity I simply fail to respond. It's like avoiding that drunk at the Christmas party. You simply smile and walk away and fail to engage and pretty soon they are off to badger some other poor sod.

Response by SGM Ronald Naujelis made Feb 26 at 2018 5:38 PM

SGM Ronald Naujelis — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:38:38 -0500

Hell No!, She is a liar a criminal, remember the lies and Obama and his staff lied about Benghazi. She should be charged with the crimes she committed. Check out, JudicialWatch.org, they sued the President for not releasing the emails and othe documents. On their FOIA request.,there motto is no is above the law.
Ron

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Mar 5 at 2018 4:32 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 16:32:31 -0500

Depending on the 'arena' used I can see where it might be prejudicial to good order. In a closed group where only a specified few are the ones to see it, well, we all have the right to make asses of ourselves on occasion, right? *grin* Now if you spread this to a public site and you clearly ID yourself as a 'soldier' (a collective term, that) my opinion is that you're asking for a legal beatdown. 134 is worded specifically to handle things like 'skunk spray' ie: something that is disgusting but not particularly harmful in itself. If nothing else you run the risk of a superior seeing your wording or having it brought to his attention and thus lowering his evaluation of your professional capabilities and maturity. Passion is allowed, abuse is not. If you cannot think of a polite way to tell someone he's full of it, talk to a DI or a CPO. I'm sure he/she can give you a binder full of comments useful in polite/public circles.

Response by Maj Rob Drury made Mar 8 at 2018 9:24 PM

Maj Rob Drury — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 21:24:57 -0500

No; but voting for Hillary certainly warrants a mental health review.

Response by Sgt Michael Clifford made Mar 11 at 2018 2:02 PM

Sgt Michael Clifford — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:02:30 -0400

Just because you are in the military doesn't mean that you do not have the constitutional rights that you have sworn to defend for everyone else. HOWEVER, no one in uniform regardless of rank should be discussing politics while in uniform or when on duty. Actually berating someone because of their political choices is pretty bush league in or out of uniform. Your time would better spent simply explaining exactly why you voted the way you did in the hope of getting them to see the light and change their boneheaded choices. Politely and respectfully of course.

Response by SP5 Arthur Ben Ephraim made Mar 23 at 2018 5:52 PM

SP5 Arthur Ben Ephraim — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:52:44 -0400

We the People shall NOT have their Freedom of Speech infringed by neo-
Nazi military type control freaks, especially when OFF DUTY.

Response by CW2 Michael MacInerney made Apr 5 at 2018 5:33 AM

CW2 Michael MacInerney — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:33:09 -0400

During active duty and as a civilian DoD employee I never voiced my opinion of politics and did not care who my co workers voted for and loved/hated. As a leader and supervisor only respect was shown for our POTUS during my 403 years of service. Berating anyone for voting is wrong, but it is against the law when you are a military member.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2018 7:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 19:11:06 -0400

There is nuance here. Some service members in the military have legitimate issues with policies that are being amended or added because those policies do or could affect them personally.

The only way to exercise your first amendment right as a service member with regard to policies that have agency over you is to interact based on those policies, not the politics or politicians behind them, nor the Americans who voted for or against those politics or politicians.

A friend of mine in service has an older sister who was deported by ICE recently. That sister came to this country when she was two. That service member has every right to speak out against policies, not the voters or politicians who support those policies.

I am a transgender soldier. The minutia of the proposed ban and its subsequent implementation memo notwithstanding, I still fight the policy, because it could potentially affect my ability to feed my kids.

There was a period of time in 2008-9 (and again, moreso, in 2012-13) where there was a social media clamor against Obama voters, and there has been a similar clamor since November 2016 over Trump voters. Engaging in this discourse only serves to give the military a bad name, whether you wanted your opinion affiliated with the military or not.

Focus on policies, not people. And if it doesn't affect you, it might be best to disengage while still serving.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Apr 5 at 2018 11:01 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:01:58 -0400

If they want to make trouble ,talk to your specialists as usual,THE SMARTER ones won't leave marks.

Response by SSgt David Thompson made Apr 8 at 2018 4:43 PM

SSgt David Thompson — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 16:43:25 -0400

If I'm not mistaken, the HATCH act applies to servicemembers as much as federal employees. That's a legal standpoint. Ethically, any time that someone could cause someone to feel poorly about political opinions, and that person could have fear of reprisal; it's ethically wrong.

Response by SFC Niccademus Colin made Apr 8 at 2018 8:36 PM

SFC Niccademus Colin — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:36:24 -0400

The military is about good order and discipline. Berating or insulting others because you disagree with someone else is a lack of good military discipline. We defend all, not just the ones we agree with. I was fortunate to have some great Commanders and senior NCO's during my 22 year career. If you remember the line from the movie "Saving Pvt Ryan", "We complain up the chain, not down", then this was the attitude instilled in our leaders back in the day. Along with selfless service and being responsible for the training, health, and welfare of our troops and their families. Have we forgotten about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? So as we used to say, don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash!

Response by PO3 Kevin DeLong made Apr 8 at 2018 9:42 PM

PO3 Kevin DeLong — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:42:35 -0400

not unless you tell the major he sucks co-k for voting for trump. That would be disrespect if you were a private.

Response by LtCol Dennis Ivan made Apr 19 at 2018 4:16 AM

LtCol Dennis Ivan — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 04:16:27 -0400

If an officer does it, it is Art 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) and Art 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation).
If its an NCO/SNCO or senior to junior, it is just Art 92.

Any form of political discrimination or undue command influence on political beliefs and favoritism/persecution violates general DOD standing orders about political affiliation and military protocol for expression of political beliefs.

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made Apr 19 at 2018 6:44 AM

PO3 Phyllis Maynard — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 06:44:23 -0400

SSG Jim Beverly this is my first encounter with your question. Certainly, it does dance around cyber bullying, public embarrassment, and attack on free speech to insult and berate individuals because of their free choice. I would think if an individual was donning the military uniform, that would come under some definition if wrong doing while in uniform or representing the uniform. When I was active duty, I remember sailors going to Captain's Mast for 'disorderly behavior while in uniform'. So I guess it would depend on whether or not superiors see this type of behavior as besmugging the representation of the uniform that represents a government entity.

Response by PO1 Richard Borowski made Apr 20 at 2018 3:22 PM

PO1 Richard Borowski — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:22:11 -0400

Berating someone for their political beliefs is never right. Discuss the differences and if neither person will waver, agree to disagree, and move on. That is part of freedom of speech.

Response by Cpl Bob Cloninger made Apr 23 at 2018 11:06 PM

Cpl Bob Cloninger — Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:06:25 -0400

Off-duty, say anything you like. On duty, though, politics are off limits, especially to subordinates.

Response by Capt Al Parker made Apr 24 at 2018 7:57 AM

Capt Al Parker — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:57:48 -0400

There were two topics that I learned were undies table to discuss when I was serving: Politics and Religion. When I did hear my fellow service friends talk about these two subjects the discussions ended up in arguments. I intentionally avoided participating in these discussions.

Response by SSgt Douglas King made Apr 24 at 2018 6:08 PM

SSgt Douglas King — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:08:06 -0400

Like it or not, we all took an oath to uphold, and obey the orders over you to include all Officers and the POTUS. Untill you finish your term.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2018 11:32 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 11:32:21 -0400

I think you are right, people of this country was given the right to choose whom they want without retaliation, this is why we served for this country. I could careless for Trump, but people chose him, I may disagree, but I don't have any bad feelings towards them.