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

SSG Merry Metzler - I was using your comment not as an attempt to deride you or your comment, but rather as a vehicle to explain how things have changed, and in many cases not for the good of the Military. You said nothing wrong, I was merely attempting to expound on what you wrote. Incidentally I originally enlisted in 1960 got out in 1973 and went back in in 1974 and finally retired in 2003.

SFC Charles McVey Sr. - No offense taken. I joined in 75, 2 years active, then Reserves in until I retired 18 years later. Had an LT (West Pt Grad) that tried to Article 15 me for something I had permission for when I was active duty to I'm leery of to much reaction☺.

I am not a fan of Ring Knockers (West Point Grads) they are under the misguided idea that they are God's gift to the Army, and in Nam they got many good soldiers killed.

Any response regarding political opinion should include standing on higher ground. Berating, and name calling are strictly forboten. Most important is understanding your subject; generally that includes the law, constitution, history, the political operatives, the issues, trends, why you have your opinion, how to defend it, and most of all a calm demeanor. Don’t allow yourself to get rattled. If you abide by those guidelines there is no justification to be charged with violating anything under the UCMJ.

SGT Charles Bartell - I've not assumed anything. I've simply stated facts if facts bother you that's not my problem. You are the one making an ass out of yourself for assuming I'm a Hillary supporter, I've not once typed out an assumption as to your political leanings. This far I've also kept if professional, but that seems to be a words that's slipped your mind maybe you should brush up on your NCO creed. I've tried to help you find the regulations and ended up doing your research for you as well. I suggest you go back and read exactly what I have written and apply some reading comprehension to it. You'll see that I never mentioned Trump or Clinton or assumed who you supported. I also never said you cant talk about politics. I simply said you cannot do it while uniformed in an official capacity.

Let me ask you this how it it in your words ( Its not our job to keep you out of trouble ) How is it that I would get in truble for having a conversation about Politics ?
Also whate does the N.C.O. Creed have to do with any of this.
You contated me telling me what I can do, And this makes me so Terbrele because I ask you for the sourse of your facts and you give me a link to a Articale. Writen by some guy naned Rob Powers. That his contact link is no good. He also does not show witch part of any of the U.S. That he showed. That backed whate he was saying just like you.
Now if you took the joke about you calling the Clintons on me serious. I Can not belive that you where ever a grunt or in Cav. I was in 4/7 Hevy Cav. At Camp Garry Owen in Korea. Most of us joked like that all the time including CSM Bell. Now he was a Cav Man.
Now you can eather show me your prof of these Regs or Climb down of that Desk.
By the way having a conversanon with some one is not Berating them. If you take it take way you might whant to look that one up for your self too.

Just some information to use or disregard. You may want to read over your statement as it needs edit. You will come across as a bit more professional and not as an angry ranter.

SGT Charles Bartell - You asked about regulations governing military members and politics. I Googled "military regulations about politics" and got About 143,000,000 results. The top two are :
** https://www.army.mil/article/71574/rules_restrict_political_activity_by_dod_personnel
** https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/

Now to do your reading for you, because you have demonstrated that you want to be spoon-fed:

From the first article"DOD Directive 1344.10 applies to members of the armed forces, whether they serve on active duty, as members of the reserve components not on active duty, as National Guard members in a non-federal status and military retirees. ... These rules are designed to prevent military members' or federal civilian employees' participation in political activities that imply -- or even appear to imply -- official sponsorship, approval or endorsement, officials said. .... That's not to imply, however, that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. In fact, DOD has a longstanding policy of encouraging members to carry out the obligations of citizenship, officials said. DOD encourages its military and civilian members to register to vote and vote as they choose, they said. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues.
However, officials emphasized, they can do so only if they don't act as, or aren't perceived as, representatives of the armed forces in carrying out these activities."


From the second link:
"The Department of Defense (DOD) encourages all military and civilian personnel and their eligible family members to register and vote. Certain provisions on campaign participation, however, apply to federal employees and members of the armed forces.

As a matter of long-standing policy, military service members and federal employees acting in their official capacity may not engage in activities that associate the DOD with any partisan political campaign or elections, candidate, cause or issue. The limitations of participation can be found in DOD Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the Hatch Act.... The Hatch Act allows most federal employees to actively participate in political activities on their own time and outside of the federal workplace. There are, however, significant restrictions on fundraising, running for office in partisan election and using one's official authority in the political arena. "

Now, about your bearing, please refrain from misspellings, vulgarisms, and calling people names - It lowers our respect of you as a Senior NCO to something lower than a Private.

PO3 John Wagner - and you think that I do not understand all that! Such was not the original question, and I have learned much since I was a PO3, and I fully understand the aspects of which you speak, or I would not be a MCPO or a temp. CWO2!!!

CWO2 James Mathews - I wasn't looking to disrespect you brother.
Nor do I think you are unaware.. far from it. I simply was triggered by your comment into tossing in my two cents worth for those who may have needed a little more door knocking to get their attention.
If you hadn't made your comment I wouldn't have made mine. Thank you for giving me the impetus and inspiration Master Chief.

I tend to agree w/ the comment that you obey your immediate superiors; the CinC is busy delegating.
I guess these days it's pretty hard to avoid the opinions & even the reasons the ships suddenly move & troops suddenly muster. I do remember in October 1983, even our CO while we were at GTMO was at a loss to explain the invasion of Grenada 2 days after the Beirut Barracks bombing. We all assumed the former had to have something to do w/ the latter; altho of course it didn't, but we didn't know.

CWO2 James Mathews - I think, looking back, that a better explanation for me....regarding your potential feelings of being told what you already know..was that I had only been recently initiated to being seriously backstabbed from a direction which pointed towards friendly fire. Enemy infiltration is easy in those cases. I wear full body armor these days. I am still being educated in the long term problems caused by these attacks. Those were two years ago now.. I recently found myself unable to get a higher level of professional license... so to speak.. due to those attacks.. This will cost me at least a quarter million over the next three years before it is put far enough behind to pass muster. The pen can be mightier than the sword indeed. The pen doesn't have to be wielded by a righteous hand.

Each of our Presidents is just like any serviceman. His own culture, instincts, and ideas have to be trained to do the job, and each will have thier individual ways; to which we, as the electors, must realize as well. We value the man at the top by what he gets done (Pluses}, and what he fails at (Minuses) in a FAIR evaluation. The current problem seems to be, the flow of public information is NOT Fair!! Then, of course,there are the fanatics in each of the far right, and far left who make things even tougher!

1stSgt Glen Saunders - I was born in 1945 so I do have some memories of Harry Truman. I also have memories of the 1952 election. Especially the day my Dad took me out of school and we went to see Ike give a speech from the back of a train. I don't know what he said, but I did get a nifty "I Like Ike" sign on a wooden stick.

I was born a month before the ‘52 election. Eisenhower is the first president I remember, but Kennedy the first president whose election I remember.

I was born in 1961 so I have no recollection of JFK. I think I would have liked serving under him. I DO remember LBJ though because I am an Army Brat (born at West Point) and my father, William Neill MacKinnon was a Commissioned Officer who was with the 4th ID in Vietnam (He retired as a LtC). I do know that like many Commissioned Officers of those years my Dad was not political and I am the one who convinced him to vote for Nixon (I still think it was the correct choice).

It is because I admired my Dad so much that I enlisted in the Army in Sep of 81 as a Field Artillery Surveyor. Like my Dad, I kept my mouth shut on my political views when I was serving on active duty. After Desert Storm I ETS'd under the early out program and joined the Active Reserves when I got back to MA. I joined a Reserve Drill Sgt unit and re-classed to Infantry. When in uniform I usually kept my views to myself but was more than willing to make my views known in the Civilian world.

There are several Presidents during my lifetime that I do not like, starting with LBJ. Carter was likable but I did not think he was a good President. Fortunately, he was not my CIC. However, I DID serve under Clinton and it was hard for me to keep my mouth shut under him. Fortunately I also did not serve under Obama because I would have also been hard-pressed to stay mum under him.

What most of you have determined by now is that I am a Republican. What some of you might have figured out is that I did not serve in the Army under my present name. You would think that as someone who is Transgender that I would automatically vote for nothing but Democrats but you would be wrong. As I have told many a fellow Transgender American, I am NOT a single issue voter. :)

SP5 Howard Moore - you do know that's not how our presidential election works, right? You know, the whole Electoral College and Constitutional Republic, right. We're not a democracy.

I'm glad I am not in the California Army National Guard. Governor Brown was my Governor when I was in high school and he's the governor of California again these last couple of years. It's more like the governor and the extreme Progressive/Sanctuary State Democratic legislature they're coming out with laws that they voted on that may not represent the will of the people. It's no wonder they talked about California breaking into five different states. Orange County is conservative but many other parts of the state or not.

SP5 Howard Moore - First off, Killary did NOT win a legal popular vote. Illegal voting was rampant. I was friends with our electoral supervisors. (I was forced to be a demoRat to stay a teacher.) They could not believe how blatant the cheating was. When they called it in, they were told that they should not interfere. The Electoral College takes care of the fact that states, not individual voters, pick the president. Without it, we would have no country because the inner cities of NY, LA, and, several others, would win every election.

PO3 B Al Eisen - I still don't see how politicians say we can't demand Identification at polling stations? This is not a Jim Crow Law, it is an anti-sanctuary state law. Everyone has ID. If you get: pulled over, check in a hotel, check in to fly at home or abroad, go to a state or government DMV, Federal, state or local agency to verify identity,go to the Hospital, HMO or any Non-Government agency, they ask for ID but Democrats and other Progressives say...no!!! I am half Hispanic. It does not make sense unless you are undocumented from outside the USA! Seniors can get IDs. Very weak bleeding heart progressive argument to not have one!!

CWO3 (Join to see) - Thank you, and thank you for your service. Semper Fi. Ted

I served post-Vietnam. As NCO's, we did not allow for political talk to get to the point of speaking ill of the C in C. It was prejudicial to good order an discipline. Military personnel need to separate POTUS form C in C. While they are the same person, they are different roles. It is also not a smart thing to speak ill of your boss, regardless of the environment. When you put on the uniform, you DO surrender some of the rights afforded to American citizens. If SM's were to engage in free speech without restriction, they can jeopardize the mission of the military.

SGT James Colwell - Same here. Anti-POTUS talk would get you in trouble quick. Maybe around the shop, and never with juniors, and definitely never on the record. That was a quick way to find yourself standing tall in front of the CO. I still avoid it in public out of habit and respect for the office. Haven't always been squeaky clean on social media but try to avoid it for the most part.

Well said. It still hurts Sgt (Join to see) as I mentioned in another post. Stay well.

I would have to agree with this above comment. It is one thing to insult someone to his face, but to do so on the internet at a distance is not only a coward's way, it is stupid, since that material s always there ready for anyone to bring up at any embarassing moment later in life!! My idea in this is "Think Before You Post." In years to come you may well regret what you have said or done in haste!

This falls under what I like to call "career choices" Some time from now for many of us, there will be someone with a job who is looking for the best person to fill it and umm...well you know...sometimes they make judgement calls based on available information. So just be mindful of what you make available for instance.
A SJW friend of mine (don't ask) don't understand why she can't get a job. And well one day I decided to just do some look to see what I could find with using a blank firefox instal, and you know what, with the footprints she left of facebook and twitter alone it left me with no doubt that she was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I saw that. That's why he's an Admiral. I don't know that I could have minded my manners.

Hurray for the Admiral!! I guess that's why he is, who ihe is! I would have ben tempted to use a heavy stick!!

CWO2 James Mathews - A heavy stick might be a little underpowered!

SSG Jim Beverly - Your a lot younger than me and I do not know what the policy is now in the Army (IMO, way too relaxed). When I was in uniform under President Ronald Reagan and military interventions were highly controversial (due to Vietnam hangover). We were each told by the Army that all we should say politically is NO COMMENT to the press or refer the press up the chain of command. We were not to express political views for or against any military or political operation. Further that policy was even enforced down to the duty Army in all areas except behind closed doors as part of regular barracks banter.........that was the only place you could take a political stand.

IMV - I'm unfamiliar with that one.. care to expand that one out for me please? If you don't wish to derail the thread, by all means message me.. thanks

SGT Alan Dike - IMV - In my View, IMO - In my opinion.

Thanks, I knew IMO, IMHO.. IMV was new to me

LTC Kevin B. - Thank you, sir!

SSG Jim Beverly - Just fyi, you can edit your question. Just click the 'edit' link on the bottom left of your post (after you've posted). Additionally, for future reference, doing that will allow you to beat the character limit -- that only applies to the original post, not follow-on edits. Welcome to Rallypoint, SSG!

SN Greg Wright - Now I feel silly, I actually looked for an edit button and couldn't find it, and of course now that you've said that, it's clear as day and was obviously always there. I'm admittedly a bit ashamed to say I've been on Rally Point for years but didn't know that because I never make new posts, and this was the first time I had the need to edit one.

In regard to your original question, I firmly believe that anyone has the right to vote for the person that they wish to, without any problem or comments from anyone. Now saying that, there are many who believe otherwaise, and I believe they are wrong. However, it won't be me making a big thing over what others do or think since I already have enough to worry about. However, when the law or my personal responsibility get involved, I will take an appropriate action for the situation. Until then, I will mind my own business!