No Kings Protests

Let me start off by saying up front that I mean no disrespect intended to the persons who were awarded their medals during the SOTU.

I don’t remember a time when awards ceremonies were included during the SOTU. If I’m wrong please correct me.

I always thought that the awarding of a medal was supposed to be its own ceremony and the recognition of heroism and valor in the line of fire.

From my perspective including these types of ceremonies in the SOTU have all the hallmarks of cheap political stunts.

These awards and their recipients deserve better from both parties.

Agreed, tx-dot. It does seem over the top. On the other hand, the Congressional Medal of Honor was created by Congress (back in 1861), so why not award it there? And whatever one may think about the appropriateness of the venue, it definitely looks disrespectful to remain seated and not applaud the heroic achievements of our service members.

As CNN said after the SOTU, if Trump had beckoned everyone to "Stand up if you love puppies" - the Democrats would have remained seated and said "we love kittens". Cheap political stunt or TDS exposed?

speaking about hyperbolic rhetoric..

look at the Trump quotes:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/polit...dictment-trump

Naaahh... I just think it may be time for Dems to change their messaging.

What is all this mindless talk about trump being a fascist and a threat to democracy supposed to accomplish? More assassination attempts?

How is democracy strengthened by hyperbolic rhetoric ("we haven't seen the gulag yet") that keeps spawning violent attacks on a democratically-elected POTUS?

No irony there (cough, cough). Originally Posted by lustylad

Anyone remember the State of the Union Address this year?

One elderly veteran of WW-II was presented with a Purple Heart. . . .only seated silence from the4 Democrats present.

An other veteran was presented with the Medal of Honor . . .more seated silence from the Democrats in the chamber.

There was more silence for other guests of note . . .why do I bother?

The progressive left won't stand (literally!) to honor or even acknowledge our veterans as they are awarded a medal for their service. That alone goes far to demonstrate who they are.

What will they stand for? King Charles . . .sure that's an easy one. Would they stand to acknowledge the still grieving parents of a murdered child . . .again, only seated silence from the left.


That is how I see it.

Now, someone tell us all just what the Dem ocrats in Congress actually stand for, both literally and figuratively. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Democrats sat through most of the State of the Union as a blanket protest against the entire speech — not a targeted slight at the military. They sat through the medal presentations the same way they sat through everything else Trump said that night. Trump acknowledged it himself: "That's the first time I've seen them stand all night" — which rather undermines the claim that the sitting was specifically directed at veterans.

One Democratic representative made a tactless comparison between the medal ceremony and an awards show. Poor taste. It does not constitute an entire party categorically refusing to honor veterans as a matter of principle.

Both parties stood and applauded the US Olympic hockey team the same night. The sitting was a protest. Framing it as contempt for veterans is a considerably larger claim than the evidence supports.

One carefully selected SOTU moment is doing a lot of heavy lifting as proof of anything systemic. It doesn't get there.

"That is how I see it" is doing some work in that closing line. What's on display here is a view filtered entirely through grievance — events interpreted not as they are, but as confirmation of a victimhood that was decided on before the evidence was examined. That's not analysis. That's a conclusion in search of facts to support it.

As for the invitation to explain what Democrats stand for — that's a game with no winning condition. The answer will be dismissed, the goalposts will move, and the grievance will remain intact regardless. Most of your questions aren't asked in good faith. This is one of them.

Agreed, tx-dot. It does seem over the top. On the other hand, the Congressional Medal of Honor was created by Congress (back in 1861), so why not award it there? And whatever one may think about the appropriateness of the venue, it definitely looks disrespectful to remain seated and not applaud the heroic achievements of our service members.

As CNN said after the SOTU, if Trump had beckoned everyone to "Stand up if you love puppies" - the Democrats would have remained seated and said "we love kittens". Cheap political stunt or TDS exposed? Originally Posted by lustylad

And this is exactly why medal ceremonies should not be held at the SOTU. It stops being about the award, the recipient or the recognition. It instead becomes political which is what you and ICU812 are trying to do in your posts.

Get over it. You want a monarchy in the US, we get it. But that’s not the country you’ve chosen to ruin. It’s the USA. And the people will always win.

Want to whine about a protest? Start with Trump’s plummeting poll numbers.

Impeachment 3 can’t come quickly enough.

And an end to the lunacy that attempts to normalize the behavior of the Trump regime.

But where were the people in the streets protesting the actual KING?

And all the Democrats present stood up, clapped and cheered . . .for a REAL King.

But they cannot and will not similarly honor an American veteran as he receives the Purple Heart or the Medal of honor.

None of this is "silly".

We know these people for who they are by what they do and what they do not do.

We know them for who they are by what they stand for . . . figuratively and literally. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Let me be a Lamb for you. You're welcome. I'll be expecting a repost from you at the end of next March.

Anyone remember the State of the Union Address this year?

One elderly veteran of WW-II was presented with a Purple Heart. . . .only seated silence from the4 Democrats present.

An other veteran was presented with the Medal of Honor . . .more seated silence from the Democrats in the chamber.

There was more silence for other guests of note . . .why do I bother?

The progressive left won't stand (literally!) to honor or even acknowledge our veterans as they are awarded a medal for their service. That alone goes far to demonstrate who they are.

What will they stand for? King Charles . . .sure that's an easy one. Would they stand to acknowledge the still grieving parents of a murdered child . . .again, only seated silence from the left.


That is how I see it.

Now, someone tell us all just what the Dem ocrats in Congress actually stand for, both literally and figuratively. Originally Posted by ICU 812

And i've seen SOTU by demmies where the repubs are as stoic as you are trying to point out. And the funny thing to me, the same speech that the demmies put out that received the same reaction you are saying, when put out by a maggie, these same repubs go nuts and nearly throw their elbows out of joint applauding.

Go figure.

"If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support... First duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens."


Originally Posted by lustylad

Those libbys were probably being polite.



Because when ol' Joey was challenged, he called out the maggies by presenting to proof of what he said and left the donny bootlickers madden than hell by their lie being exposed.

That did not make for prestigous (sp) viewing.
So, the libbys were probably doing something that is foreign to maggies: being polite.

Naaahh... I just think it may be time for Dems to change their messaging.

What is all this mindless talk about trump being a fascist and a threat to democracy supposed to accomplish? More assassination attempts?

How is democracy strengthened by hyperbolic rhetoric ("we haven't seen the gulag yet") that keeps spawning violent attacks on a democratically-elected POTUS?

No irony there (cough, cough). Originally Posted by lustylad

And you don't think the maggies need to do the same?!?!

Maggies are losing their base. As hard as they try to rig elections, they are losing seats left and right. So much so, current members are refusing to run another term.

Y'all need to clear your sinuses because y'alls house is stinking to high heaven and you can't smell it.

Let me start off by saying up front that I mean no disrespect intended to the persons who were awarded their medals during the SOTU.

I don’t remember a time when awards ceremonies were included during the SOTU. If I’m wrong please correct me.

I always thought that the awarding of a medal was supposed to be its own ceremony and the recognition of heroism and valor in the line of fire.

From my perspective including these types of ceremonies in the SOTU have all the hallmarks of cheap political stunts.

These awards and their recipients deserve better from both parties. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Well no . . . .YOU have not disrespected our decorated vets. I do not believe that anyone oaths forum does.

Yet many in attendance at the State of The Union address did . . .about half of them anyway. And it was intentional and b latant.

We can all disagree with policy, its implementation and perhaps even the style of its administration, but rendering honor to a veteran, decorated or not, by rising and applauding should never be an issue for any of us.

I worked directly with veterans at a major VA hospital for 12 years in the 1990s. Most were just guys who had done their time and got out. A good many had served in WW-II, Korea or Viet Nam. A few were men who properly should be memorialized in a history book.

Regardless, I called each of them "Sir". A good number of them told me not to because they were "not now not now more have I ever been an . . .officer!" And I always responded by telling them that that our relationship was me serving them and in my view, they deserved the honor of being addressed as "sir."

We can all separate politics from rendering honor to our vets . . .so should those in Congress.

Well no . . . .YOU have not disrespected our decorated vets. I do not believe that anyone oaths forum does.

Yet many in attendance at the State of The Union address did . . .about half of them anyway. And it was intentional and b latant.

We can all disagree with policy, its implementation and perhaps even the style of its administration, but rendering honor to a veteran, decorated or not, by rising and applauding should never be an issue for any of us.

I worked directly with veterans at a major VA hospital for 12 years in the 1990s. Most were just guys who had done their time and got out. A good many had served in WW-II, Korea or Viet Nam. A few were men who properly should be memorialized in a history book.

Regardless, I called each of them "Sir". A good number of them told me not to because they were "not now not now more have I ever been an . . .officer!" And I always responded by telling them that that our relationship was me serving them and in my view, they deserved the honor of being addressed as "sir."

We can all separate politics from rendering honor to our vets . . .so should those in Congress. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Both things can be true at the same time. Trump shouldn’t have politicized the awarding of those medals during the SOTU. Every one should have stood for awarding of the medals.

It’s my contention that Trump did this deliberately both to burnish his own image as well as manipulating the story to denigrate the opposition party.

No matter how you perceive the situation it’s really nothing more than a Trumpian sideshow designed to manipulate his base into concentrating on anything but his own failures.

As for the invitation to explain what Democrats stand for — that's a game with no winning condition. The answer will be dismissed, the goalposts will move, and the grievance will remain intact regardless. Most of your questions aren't asked in good faith. This is one of them. Originally Posted by fd-guy

TRANSLATION: There is no answer to your question that isn't woefully inadequate. Democrats were on the losing side of every salient issue during the 2024 election campaign. There's no way I can "win" when all of the key planks in the DNC platform were opposed by 80% of the electorate. So let's change the subject. Please don't put me on the spot like that.

Well no . . . .YOU have not disrespected our decorated vets. I do not believe that anyone oaths forum does.

Yet many in attendance at the State of The Union address did . . .about half of them anyway. And it was intentional and b latant.

We can all disagree with policy, its implementation and perhaps even the style of its administration, but rendering honor to a veteran, decorated or not, by rising and applauding should never be an issue for any of us.

I worked directly with veterans at a major VA hospital for 12 years in the 1990s. Most were just guys who had done their time and got out. A good many had served in WW-II, Korea or Viet Nam. A few were men who properly should be memorialized in a history book.

Regardless, I called each of them "Sir". A good number of them told me not to because they were "not now not now more have I ever been an . . .officer!" And I always responded by telling them that that our relationship was me serving them and in my view, they deserved the honor of being addressed as "sir."

We can all separate politics from rendering honor to our vets . . .so should those in Congress. Originally Posted by ICU 812

If I interpret your first sentence correctly, i'm glad that you do not think anyone here takes for granted the service to this country that all who served in the military have done.

Also applaud you in the respect you give to those who you have met doing your duties at your job.

Both things can be true at the same time. Trump shouldn’t have politicized the awarding of those medals during the SOTU. Every one should have stood for awarding of the medals.

It’s my contention that Trump did this deliberately both to burnish his own image as well as manipulating the story to denigrate the opposition party.

No matter how you perceive the situation it’s really nothing more than a Trumpian sideshow designed to manipulate his base into concentrating on anything but his own failures. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I have tried watching some speeches I consider important with the current potus. But I find myself changing the channel or turning off the device that is delivering it because of the sheer volume of irreputably proven lies spewed during these events. I can understand a mistaken unintentionally spoken. Biden did alot of that but ol' joey was quick to correct himself on the next breath. trump just keeps on ad naseum lying.

So, I missed the event which was brought up. And TxDot, I quite agree with you that the distinguished service that these men have done were being subverted for political means. I have no doubt in that. And I feel bad that they were used as pawns to satisfy the ego of the draft dodger in chief.

Well no . . . .YOU have not disrespected our decorated vets. I do not believe that anyone oaths forum does.

Yet many in attendance at the State of The Union address did . . .about half of them anyway. And it was intentional and b latant.

We can all disagree with policy, its implementation and perhaps even the style of its administration, but rendering honor to a veteran, decorated or not, by rising and applauding should never be an issue for any of us.

I worked directly with veterans at a major VA hospital for 12 years in the 1990s. Most were just guys who had done their time and got out. A good many had served in WW-II, Korea or Viet Nam. A few were men who properly should be memorialized in a history book.

Regardless, I called each of them "Sir". A good number of them told me not to because they were "not now not now more have I ever been an . . .officer!" And I always responded by telling them that that our relationship was me serving them and in my view, they deserved the honor of being addressed as "sir."

We can all separate politics from rendering honor to our vets . . .so should those in Congress. Originally Posted by ICU 812

"Twelve years at the VA calling everyone 'Sir'" is certainly a moving little credential drop. Assuming it's true, fine — sentiment noted.

But performative reverence for veterans is cheap. Anyone can clap on cue at a televised spectacle, toss out a "thank you for your service," or pin on a flag and pretend that counts as respect. That's not sacrifice. That's choreography.

The same political movement that loves using veterans as patriotic stage dressing has repeatedly treated them as expendable everywhere that actually matters — cutting VA support, fighting the PACT Act, and sending them into disasters built on lies, fantasy, or pure incompetence. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Plenty of standing ovations, strangely less concern once the cameras are off.

Standing up during the show is the easy part. The other 364 days are where the truth lives.

And the Democrats who stayed seated were protesting a president, not a uniform. If that distinction feels blurry, maybe blame the people who keep using service members as emotional camouflage for political theater.

[QUOTE=txdot-guy;1064053830]Both things can be true at the same time. Trump shouldn’t have politicized the awarding of those medals during the SOTU. Every one should have stood for awarding of the medals.

It’s my contention that Trump did this deliberately both to burnish his own image as well as manipulating the story to denigrate the opposition party.

No matter how you perceive the situation it’s really nothing more than a Trumpian sideshow designed to manipulate his base into concentrating on anything but his own failures.[/QUOT

Your view is understandable and valid. If I were president, I would not have done that.

So why not honor those veterans with a standing ovation? It's for them. A standing-O at any medal ceremony is just another way that a group can give a thank-you-for-your-service.

Your view is understandable and valid. If I were president, I would not have done that.

So why not honor those veterans with a standing ovation? It's for them. A standing-O at any medal ceremony is just another way that a group can give a thank-you-for-your-service. Originally Posted by ICU 812

No matter how many times you recycle the same grievance, the answer doesn't change. The protest was against the president, not the uniform — which Trump basically confirmed himself when he said it was "the first time he'd seen them stand all night." They were sitting for everything. The veterans weren't singled out.

Using veterans as emotional stage props to engineer a cheap political gotcha is not honoring them. It's using them. And the people who run that play every election cycle while cutting VA funding and opposing the PACT Act don't get to lecture anyone else about respect for service members.

I'm making the assumption based on your posts that you are more veteran "adjacent" than someone who's actually been in uniform.

The didactic left, as usual missed the mark with their slogan. They should have adopted "No Turds" instead. That is a movement the OP can relate to. It does raise the existential question of; do turd polishers know they are polishing turds?