Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump is not a traitor. That's ridiculous. And neither was Obama or Clinton. And I say this as a person who finds merits and faults in all three of them. Has this country become this divided that these are the kinds of things people are thinking?
I remember now why I steer clear of the P&O forum. It's like a depressing version of Alice's though the looking glass.
Treason is defined in the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Trump is giving the enemy, including the enemies that comprise the "swamp", the fight of their lives. In other words, you got it bass ackwards, but that is to be expected
Spot on. Treason in this context is defined by the US Constitution, not Webster's dictionary.
I swear, the combination of TDS and IPDS (identity politics derangement syndrome) is going to knock me right out of the Democratic party.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 12-11-2018 at 11:00 AM..
Reason: Edited quote
If we use the legal definition don't we need to see more evidence. So many liberals want sentencing before even the evidence is fully there or corroborated and thus are not true liberals.
Trump is not a traitor. That's ridiculous. And neither was Obama or Clinton.
We're not talking about merits and demerits. We are talking about breaking laws and having MANY close associates who take millions from foreign governments before, during (and maybe after) a Presidential Campaign.
You could call yourself a moderate or a centrist, but unless you are a serious historian or have read 10's of thousands of pages on the Office, I don't see how you can say "ridiculous".....
If one thinks "where there is smoke, there is usually fire" - or, more accurately, where there are a bunch of glowing embers and small fires, there might actually BE a fire....then you have to consider the possibility.
Since history and our justice system is relatively kind to traitors and treasonous acts (Petraeus, Manning and many more), we can't really say "one is not a traitor until indicted and convicted of such"....
I'd rather look at it this way. Many of the acts surrounding this SEEM treasonous.
Others are most definitely criminal - in the felony sense.
We haven't even started with Obstruction.
Taken in total, this rises to a level never seen before in our history. If you don't believe me, ask Presidential and Constitutional scholars. Some will say YES and some may say NO and some may say WAIT. But none are going to dismiss it as ridiculous or impossible.
Spot on. Treason in this context is defined by the US Constitution, not Webster's dictionary.
Oh, I agree. But when you ask the PUBLIC, that is the definition. If a large percentage of Americans think his actions are treasonous, that means something.
As far as the Swamp, you have to be kidding. Even those who are Trump supporters have to admit they have never seen so many swamp things, who also happen to be unqualified, in an administration. Next thing you will tell us is that Bolton, Kudlow and Whittaker are all brilliant and rise to the level of the top of our best...
We're not talking about merits and demerits. We are talking about breaking laws and having MANY close associates who take millions from foreign governments before, during (and maybe after) a Presidential Campaign.
You could call yourself a moderate or a centrist, but unless you are a serious historian or have read 10's of thousands of pages on the Office, I don't see how you can say "ridiculous".....
If one thinks "where there is smoke, there is usually fire" - or, more accurately, where there are a bunch of glowing embers and small fires, there might actually BE a fire....then you have to consider the possibility.
Since history and our justice system is relatively kind to traitors and treasonous acts (Petraeus, Manning and many more), we can't really say "one is not a traitor until indicted and convicted of such"....
I'd rather look at it this way. Many of the acts surrounding this SEEM treasonous.
Others are most definitely criminal - in the felony sense.
We haven't even started with Obstruction.
Taken in total, this rises to a level never seen before in our history. If you don't believe me, ask Presidential and Constitutional scholars. Some will say YES and some may say NO and some may say WAIT. But none are going to dismiss it as ridiculous or impossible.
The merits and flaws I pointed out only in that I meant to say I don't see any of them as villains or heroes.
I would agree that this current administration is riddled with corruption and scandal of a historical proportion. But that's not the same thing as treason as defined in the Constitution. Therefore, Trump is not a Traitor.
The merits and flaws I pointed out only in that I meant to say I don't see any of them as villains or heroes.
I would agree that this current administration is riddled with corruption and scandal of a historical proportion. But that's not the same thing as treason as defined in the Constitution. Therefore, Trump is not a Traitor.
I think we have to be very clear. A pol here asks US if we think he is traitor:
"trai·tor
/ˈtrādər/Submit
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"
synonyms:betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade"
So in an informal sense - as here - his actions SEEM treasonous to me (or many Americans and laymen that would look at them. I'm very liberal, but at the same time Chelsea Manning - that seemed treasonous to me also. Same with snowden...and those weren't done for cash and favors and penthouses.
The Constitutional question - that's a separate issue. It appears that short of Trump activating a coup, one of the two types (levy war) would never apply. The second, aid and comfort, is debatable and I too doubt that Trump would ever be convicted of such.
However, remember that Manafort certainly did give aid and comfort to our "enemy" in the Ukrainian situation since Ukraine is an ally of ours and Manafort took 10's of millions in an attempt to bring Ukraine into the Russian fold. Cohen was/is also involved in the basic working toward that goal also...for MONEY. Neither were doing things because they believed it was for the good of the USA.
This is an informal forum. If you and I were sitting in an legal office looking at everything involved we'd likely say "many of these actions seem treasonous - let's follow the plot and see where it goes". Not in a constitutional sense.
I guess another poll might ask - given the Constitutional definition of treason (aid and comfort to the enemy would be the only issue), do you believe Donald Trump either committed or caused to be committed such act(s)?
Or something like that. Maybe it fits better in "History" because, remember, lots of POTUS'es have done treasonous things....Both Nixon and Reagan were said to have been elected through dealings with the enemy that asked them to hold off on certain actions for a couple weeks or similar.
Chains of command are meant to protect higher ranking officials...and they do a swell job of it.
trai·tor
/ˈtrādər/
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
The only thing missing from this definition is a photo of Trump smiling and waving.
This poll is total bull kaka
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
