What is the general consensus about posting negative commentary about the POTUS by enlisted vs. commisioned?

thanks SFC!

Sgt Richard Buckner, we have a right to burn the flag and protest the funerals of our comrades killed in action. Some nonsense we shouldn't engage in just out of respect and professionalism of our organization and nation. Having a right to do something doesn't mean we should. As retirees, we still represent the military. Posting negative comments is unprofessional. If we have a duty, its to be good example/mentor to our existing service members. Taking actions that's inappropriate for them is clearly inconsistent with our values

Sgt Richard Buckner , the President is made Commander-in-Chief by Article II of the constitution. I fail to see how you claim allegiance to the Constitution and respect its articles/contents. We don't get to choose which parts of the Constitution we like ale carte
The President may be an elected official, but he's also the highest level of the military command chain. Not a good precedent to down the leadership. While active, I didn't go around making negative comments publicly about my battalion commander, much less the top commander in the land. If we disagreed, we talked behind closed doors. Respect as a person may be earned, but the position must always be respected.

Understood, sometimes we have to do that. It is good conversation, SGT

Now wait up, DoD civilians could also land in hot water depending on what they say for after all, if a private business will terminate an employee for negative comments, imagine what the federal government will do with their civilian employees.

Roger that SSG (ret) William Martin But DOD Civilians are not regular Civilians. They are required to do many things that the Military are. In this instance I was referring to members of this site that were once Military but have no relation to it other than the title of Veteran.

Concur.......it's playing with hand grenades if you are active duty, Dod, or otherwise employed by the government......we all know in public you always agree with the chain of command.

thanks for all the input.

thanks, Ma'am!

UCMJ article 88 makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state or territory, commonwealth or possession in which he is on duty or present. That covers officers.

Article 134 Makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit to the Armed Forces. This is how similar behavior can be addressed for other ranks by the chain of command.

What I state only applies to actively serving personnel...that is the beauty of retirement. You can do what ever you want.