How do you feel about veterans or Soldiers criticizing our President?

Can service members speak disrespectfully about the president? Simple answer is no. Military personnel can not. He is their Commander in Chief.

Contemptuous manifesting, feeling, or expressing deep hatred or disapproval : feeling or showing contempt. Means insulting, being rude.

Article 88 Of The UCMJ Contempt toward officials under Article 88 of the UCMJ takes place when a commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces uses contemptuous words against officials of any branch of the U.S. government or any state government.

This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

As a Soldier and/or Veteran - I didn't and don't have to like you or agree with you to show you respect. The highest office in our nation the position of the President of United States of America demands our respect and our enemies need to know this as well. Somewhere some leaders forgot this. We must see the bigger picture here. As long as the orders given are not unethical or illegal, meaning they might not violate any laws but still go against moral principle or proper conduct. We remember the oath we took and follow and give support.

Refresh yourself with the U.S. Constitution of the United States - Article II Section 1 and Section 2

Remember your oath of office (the portion you pledge to defend)!

The oath of enlistment includes the pledge to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The oath also includes a pledge to obey the orders of the President and officers.

The oath of office includes the pledge to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

Always Lead From The Front Being First Right and Then Moving Forward!

If your talking about the current President Joe Biden, he deserves all the criticism he gets. To me he is a squint y eyed, Chinese Commie loving bastard. All he did was line the pockets of him self, his corrupt son, and family, and does not care about the American people or the USA.

That’s why I proudly prefer the title “Mr”. Veteran entitle you to take back a portion of the Bill of Rights that you volunteered to set aside for a defined term. You no longer have to tolerate what is wrong or an outright falsehood for the sake of the machine’s face any longer. How many times did you see the failures, fraud, waste, or abuse during your service time yet, you held your tongue for the sake of the machine’s face any or knowing the wagons would circle to hide those things. How many have died or suffered as a result of policies that someone was to “respectful” to point out. Much of the American populace already tolerate too much failure, arrogance, disregard, or self reverence from politicians and other leaders alike. That type of “protected status” allows mangers and politicians to overreach. At some point, rendering a turd the respect of lunch meat because someone placed it between to slices of bread will leave a bad taste and make many sick. The President was elected to a job for The People. When was the last time you hired someone but felt obligated to sensor your evaluation or criticisms when they performed well below the standard. Once free from commission or enlistment, a free citizen is afforded the power of their voice.

Any active military person who attends (or writes on social media)any political activity,and speaks or indicates a political position, especially about the President is violating his/her oath of office.Prime example-LTC Vindman,who attended an impeachment hearing about President Trump,in uniform and criticized the President.Wonder why he didnt get promoted to full Colonel and suddenly retired? Notable that his twin brother did make 06,and just ran for Congress and got elected.

Posting on social media in ANY form, to criticize ANYONE, reminds me of when people would call up someone to scream about ANYTHING and then hangup. COWARDS!! Would they say those things to the PRESIDENT if he was standing in FRONT of them?? I doubt it, so they SCREAM on Social Media and then hide behind a screen name. I'm a 75 year old VN Vet, who before going to a "Conflict" that took almost 60 THOUSAND KIDS, was a Kennedy Democrat. Since then I vote for who I believe will do the best job for the country. Having to watch Obama and now Biden tear the Country in half, I've STILL SUPPORTED THEM!!! Do I LIKE how Trump talks or acts, NO...but he's not sticking a cigar in a young woman's vagina IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!! One thing Clinton and Trump DO, is do things that help the country, the rest is just noise

Quit screaming into the night and just do your jobs. If you don't like it, GET OUT and scream all you want.

CPL, as a member of the armed services, regardless of rank, you should be cognizant of the fact that the President is in fact your ultimate boss. You would no more "trash" the Division CG; therefore, you would not "trash" the President. This does not mean that you do not have your political notions but express them at the ballot box not on the street.
As for Vets the same respect should be shown; however, the difference is that you may have open political discussions as is your right under the 1st Amendment. Many vets wear some identifying hat, emblem, or jacket that identifies them as a vet and the public would deem it out of sorts if one were to "trash" the President. So, vets be top drawer in your actions and exercise your rights prudently and cast your ballot accordingly.

I support the First Amendment. All Americans have the right to criticize our politicians. Those afflicted with TDS have every right to scream their little hearts and minds out.

BLUF:
Contempt toward officials under Article 88 of the UCMJ takes place when a Commissioned Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer of the United States Armed Forces uses contemptuous words against officials of any branch of the U.S. government or any state government.

To the average person looking at Article 88 from outside of the armed services, that definition comes across as a broad restriction on an officer’s ability to criticize his or her own government. That is precisely what the UCMJ intends it to be. What is more important to note is that the UCMJ makes no distinction whether those words were spoken in a public or private setting.

The UCMJ goes on to define “contemptuous” as words used against an official in either their official or private capacity, which are insulting, rude, and disdainful conduct, or which otherwise disrespectfully attribute to another a quality of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness. The truth or falsity of the statement(s) is immaterial.

What Must Be Proven To Find Guilt Under Article 88, UCMJ?
First of all, even the novice law enthusiast can quickly see the incredibly low bar that is set to prove a word contemptuous. Rude, mean, and insulting are very much in the eye of the beholder and relative truths not often used as evidence in a traditional court of law. In other words, the military justice system has rigged the game to find you guilty if they feel like it under Article 88. Now, there are a few core components that they will have to prove along the way. These elements that the government must prove include the following:

That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces
That (state the time and place alleged), the accused (used orally and publicly) (caused to be published or circulated writings containing) certain words against the:
(a) (President) (Vice President) (Congress) (Secretary of _______)
(b) (Governor) (legislature) of the (State of ______) (Commonwealth of _______) (_______ a possession of the United States), a (State) (Commonwealth) (possession) in which the accused was then (on duty) (present);
That these words were (state the words alleged) or words to that effect
That, by an act of the accused, these words came to knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
That the words used were contemptuous (in themselves) (or) (by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used).

It is Constitutionally protected as long as the person is merely stating an opinion, that is appropriate. It is best to be aware of Conduct as a member of the Military as that is subject to review and discipline.

If one is going to post on social media at all, it's best to do it in a locked down way so that your posts only appear to the group of people you select (i.e. Friends only on Facebook) and refrain from public posts completely, especially if they involve political opinion. Politics should not be involved in the military ranks when on duty and on base. The only thing that comes close to allowable politics on duty is the discernment of an unlawful order vs. a lawful one when given by a president. Your chain of command should be able to assist you with this.