Trump's trips to Mar-a-Lago cost taxpayers at least $6.6 million in 2017, according to new report...

Careful, brother.

You're skirting dangerously close to "disparaging"

UCMJ ART 88
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

MAJ (Join to see) - I am a reservist, not in uniform, not on duty, and writing as a civilian with no representation that my view is shared by the Army Reserve.

There is no prohibition against talking about current events or voicing opinions in my civilian capacity.

Now on duty, in uniform, there are such prohibitions and I am far more guarded.

By the way, I really hope you gave such warnings to the many conservatives here who repeated not only discussed President Obama, but actually referred to him with name-calling such as “Obummer” and the like, which of course I have never done to with regard to Trump.

I don’t like Trump. I think he is a conman and a fraud. He has been caught lying on numerous occasions. Discussing those occasions and the articles that brought that conduct to light is not insulting the president, it is discussing current events as every American, even active duty soldiers (when off duty and out of uniform) are not only allowed to do, but have a constitutionally protected right to do.

1) fair enough
2) nope - they can't rationally discuss anything, and I'd love to see them burn for the infraction so why warn 'em?

I would echo Major Hamilton's warning... While you say you are not in a duty status thereby allowed to make the disparaging comment ("He IS the swamp" is not an occasion, article, or current event), screenshot of your comment only very clearly shows that you are a currently serving Major and could be used in the manner which violates the stated article. They don't HAVE to include your follow-up explanation, and considering the lack of ethics so often displayed by the professional media you can only assume any blogger out there would be even less ethical.

And yes... I warn both sides against violating Article 88 whenever I see it.