How do you feel about currently serving military who bash the President on social media?

I whole-heartedly agree.  Not only is it disrespectful, it also unprofessional. We took an oath.

Thank you 1stSgt and MSgt. Good to know that you are or were leading the troops.

You don't openly bash your Commanding Officer on social media so you should afford the President the same level of respect. I dont always like or agree with my Skipper, but as a military professional you respect the office. The President is your ultimate CO. You don't have to like him, but you should keep your opinions off the Twittersphere.

As POTUS is in the military chain of command (as we all know) of current service members, my understanding was that it would be against UCMJ to bash him on social media.  The key term being 'bash' (as phrased in the question of this thread) -- which suggests really going off on him about something. 

I'm pretty sure you are referring to Article 88 of the UCMJ—Contempt toward officials . And that pertains only to officers.

As many of you have stated, just as is the practice in my realm of authority, it is a true lack of understanding of our position and the respect that the seat commands. None of us should speak harshly in a public forum about our leaders. That being said, there is an equally large issue with the single most recognizable officer in the armed forces disputing his Ward Room and advisors publicly for a few points of the popular vote. For that reason, I truly believe that just as we would file a grievance for lack of faith and ability on a CO we should be more than justified in filing a lack of faith and ability in the Commander and Chief. That is both professional and dignified.

AHH but Art 134 can be used as a catch all for enlisted as well.
Article 134 could be used to cover that situation:

934. ART. 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, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, 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.

Source:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj... ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Paul, agree on the sentiment, but disagree on the scope. I wouldn't put RP on the level of water cooler conversation where you have a small group of individuals you know.

Rather, discussions here are more akin to having a loud discussion (since all RP members can hear what you are saying) at a public park where you're holding a military service event. Since there are over 267k members on RP last I looked, there are bound to be more than a few that you would never discuss your frank opinions with around a water cooler environment.

Having said that, it is nice that we don't have to prepend every statement with "these are my own views and do not necessarily represent those of my organization"

I like your analogy with the public park, except that it implies civilians would be able to freely observe our discussion. That's not the case with RP.

Skeptical? Try opening your browser in In-Private mode and go to rallypoint.com. You get a login screen! ONLY those who are members are allowed to enter and participate in discussion.

Added this in response to the good LTC's enlightening post below.

Thanks LTC for clearing that up. Was not aware, and appreciate the info. Will keep that in mind for future ref.

Capt Jeff S., actually that's not correct. The information you share is dependent upon your privacy settings in the settings page (https://www.rallypoint.com/settings).

Non-members can get access to RallyPoint and see the discussions - they just won't see your name and photo if you have it hidden from public view.

Open your incognito/private tab and go to https://www.rallypoint.com/answers ... you'll see what non-members see when they access the site.

I'm reminded of a comment early in my career that a young enlisted soldier said to my company commander after she received an Article 15 (can't remember exactly what it was for (disrespect?), but it was because something she said).

"Sir, I didn't know that when I signed up to defend people's freedoms that I was giving up my own".

Rallypoint is not exactly a public media as all its members are military or former military. And so, just as a family doesn't air its dirty laundry in front of the entire neighborhood, we keep our venting amongst ourselves. The civilian community isn't privvy to what's being said here...

I could not agree more sir!

That's definitely true.

At the time when the Lewinsky affair was still making headlines, I was in France on a deployment. The French officers came up to me snickering and said, "Sooo, how does it feel to serve a Cmdr-in-Chief that can't keep his pants on?" And to that I responded, "I didn't vote for the President, but because I swore an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, my allegiance is to the Office of the President of the United States, not the man sitting in that office. And regardless of what I think of him personally, I am required to give him the respect as appropriate to the office he holds."

They were alright with that response and never brought the subject up again. To those who don't think character matters when selecting political leaders, guess again. How we are perceived by our Allies and our enemies has everything to do with the character (or perceived lack thereof) of the man representing our nation. He must be held to the highest standards of conduct and dare I say, even higher than that expected of our military officers.