Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 07-25-2018, 06:45 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Presuming that Trump doesn't actually come out and announce on national television that he's being bribed/coerced/blackmailed by Putin, what could convince you that he is? Meuller?
Sure -- Mueller could well have evidence that sways me. I'm very eager to see what his investigation has or will reveal.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #552  
Old 07-26-2018, 08:26 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Sure -- Mueller could well have evidence that sways me. I'm very eager to see what his investigation has or will reveal.
And, well, that's where we are all at.

If this is a deliberative body, it is better to think of it as a grand jury than a trial. We do not have access to all the information. What we have access to is very limited, and is only what others choose us to have access to.

This is not a trial for guilt or innocence, this is a preponderance of evidence to determine whether there is merit towards further investigation.

Based on the facts that have been presented to me, I do feel that there is more than enough probable cuase to take a much closer look, as it does appear on the face of things that he is committing traitorous acts.

Further investigation will either increase that evidence, or clear his name. I strongly feel the former, but, not having access to all the information that some such as Mueller (or Putin) would have, there are certainly uncertainties.
  #553  
Old 07-26-2018, 09:23 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And, well, that's where we are all at.

If this is a deliberative body, it is better to think of it as a grand jury than a trial. We do not have access to all the information. What we have access to is very limited, and is only what others choose us to have access to.

This is not a trial for guilt or innocence, this is a preponderance of evidence to determine whether there is merit towards further investigation.
Again, going back to the OP, the question posed was not: Is there enough evidence against Trump to begin an investigation into wether or not he is a traitor to his country? The OP ask whether Trump is, plain and simple, a traitor to his country.

Last edited by John Mace; 07-26-2018 at 09:23 AM.
  #554  
Old 07-26-2018, 09:44 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Again, going back to the OP, the question posed was not: Is there enough evidence against Trump to begin an investigation into wether or not he is a traitor to his country? The OP ask whether Trump is, plain and simple, a traitor to his country.
Then the answer is "maybe, pending further investigation." If the OP wants to go all TV-lawyer on us and demand a "yes or no" answer, that leaves us (currently) at "no."

Does it matter?
  #555  
Old 07-26-2018, 10:26 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Again, going back to the OP, the question posed was not: Is there enough evidence against Trump to begin an investigation into wether or not he is a traitor to his country? The OP ask whether Trump is, plain and simple, a traitor to his country.
The debate that the OP prompted was whether or not Trump is a traitor. That has been answered.

So, this being a debate, means that pieces of evidence are considered, and conclusions are drawn to the best of our ability.

For instance, if the OP had been, "Is the Earth, plain and simple, round?" Then there would be those who would say, "Well, no, it looks pretty flat to me." And then there would be information given about angles of the moon and sun and how ships disappear over the horizon, which would be dismissed by those who can see for their own eyes that the earth is flat.

Without us going into a rocket and going up high enough to see the curvature with our own eyes, I cannot point out a single thing that will convince a flat earther that the world is round, I can only give data and the analysis of that data that I use to conclude that the earth is round. That the flat earther is unconvinced, and considers data and analysis to not be the simple answer that they were looking for, but they will not accept the complex explanation that goes with that answer, is not an argument that the earth is flat.

In this thread, I have laid out my conclusion, and many of the facts that I used to come to that conclusion. By admitting that I am not omniscient, I concede that we don't know everything, and that there could be exculpatory evidence that explains his actions in a more favorable light.

In absence of that evidence, on the preponderance of evidence given to the public, I do find his acts traitorous.

So, as I've stated, yes, he is a traitor. That I have given information and analysis in support of that conclusion, and have admitted that there are things that we do not know that could either strengthen or undermine that conclusion, should not be considered to not be answering the OP.



Otherwise, the only answer that would be acceptable would be "Check back later." /end thread.
  #556  
Old 07-26-2018, 11:20 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

In this thread, I have laid out my conclusion, and many of the facts that I used to come to that conclusion. By admitting that I am not omniscient, I concede that we don't know everything, and that there could be exculpatory evidence that explains his actions in a more favorable light.

In absence of that evidence, on the preponderance of evidence given to the public, I do find his acts traitorous.

So, as I've stated, yes, he is a traitor. That I have given information and analysis in support of that conclusion, and have admitted that there are things that we do not know that could either strengthen or undermine that conclusion, should not be considered to not be answering the OP.



Otherwise, the only answer that would be acceptable would be "Check back later." /end thread.
How about saying:
I believe the evidence allows the following inferences to be drawn: A, B, C, D, and E. If those inferences are correct, then yes, Trump is a traitor.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #557  
Old 07-26-2018, 11:36 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
How about saying:
I believe the evidence allows the following inferences to be drawn: A, B, C, D, and E. If those inferences are correct, then yes, Trump is a traitor.
That would be a more succinct way of saying what I believe my argument has been.

Though I've laid out the details and reasons for a, b, c, d, and e, and I also do not say that all 5 of them need to be proven to be correct for all 5 to be correct in fact, and not all 5 need to be correct for him to be a traitor, really, any one of them would do, two or three to establish a true pattern, though.
  #558  
Old 07-26-2018, 12:54 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That would be a more succinct way of saying what I believe my argument has been.

Though I've laid out the details and reasons for a, b, c, d, and e, and I also do not say that all 5 of them need to be proven to be correct for all 5 to be correct in fact, and not all 5 need to be correct for him to be a traitor, really, any one of them would do, two or three to establish a true pattern, though.
OK, then I have no beef with what you're saying.

My objection was that I wasn't hearing the "If those inferences are correct," caveat in what you were saying. As I read you, you were asserting that those inferences WERE correct, not acknowledging that they were suppositions based on disclosed facts. In essence, what I heard was you claiming the disclosed facts admitted of no other possible explanation.

But, my mistake.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #559  
Old 07-26-2018, 08:09 PM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 11,873
Just recall that Trump's definition of treason includes failure to applaud when he is giving a speech. That sets the bar so low that of course he is a traitor.
  #560  
Old 07-27-2018, 02:51 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Just recall that Trump's definition of treason includes failure to applaud when he is giving a speech. That sets the bar so low that of course he is a traitor.
I don't recall his saying that -- but I have zero problems in believing that he did.

I think it's fair to say that Trump is very comfortable applying whatever standard he wants to at any given moment, changing standards without a moment's self-consciousness.

So sure: if you ALSO are comfortable with such an approach, then you can apply the Trumpian "traitor," standard, sure. But because this bears very little relationship to an approach I find helpful or credible.

In much the same way that I find Trump himself very rarely helpful or credible.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-27-2018 at 02:53 AM.
  #561  
Old 07-27-2018, 07:27 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I don't recall his saying that -- but I have zero problems in believing that he did.
Just for your edification.

Quote:
President Donald Trump wasn't -- and, apparently, still isn't -- happy that Democrats in Congress didn't stand to applaud him in his State of the Union address last week.

Here's what Trump told a crowd in Cincinnati in a speech on Monday afternoon:
"They were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, 'treasonous.' I mean, Yeah, I guess why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much."
Quote:
I think it's fair to say that Trump is very comfortable applying whatever standard he wants to at any given moment, changing standards without a moment's self-consciousness.

So sure: if you ALSO are comfortable with such an approach, then you can apply the Trumpian "traitor," standard, sure. But because this bears very little relationship to an approach I find helpful or credible.

In much the same way that I find Trump himself very rarely helpful or credible.
It is not a useful or legal definition, but I do not have any problem ethically judging someone by the standards that they themselves set, and by the standard that he has set, he absolutely clears the bar for treason.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 07-27-2018 at 07:27 AM.
  #562  
Old 07-27-2018, 11:59 AM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I don't recall his saying that -- but I have zero problems in believing that he did.

I think it's fair to say that Trump is very comfortable applying whatever standard he wants to at any given moment, changing standards without a moment's self-consciousness.

So sure: if you ALSO are comfortable with such an approach, then you can apply the Trumpian "traitor," standard, sure. But because this bears very little relationship to an approach I find helpful or credible.

In much the same way that I find Trump himself very rarely helpful or credible.
I agree that Trump is a moron and using his words as a standard for anything (other than his own status as a hypocrite) is worthless. However I believe we've right here figured out a fairly reasonable non-fluctuating standard for "traitor" that most certainly does apply to Trump - presuming that any significant percentage of the tales told about him are true.
  #563  
Old 07-27-2018, 03:05 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Just for your edification.




It is not a useful or legal definition, but I do not have any problem ethically judging someone by the standards that they themselves set, and by the standard that he has set, he absolutely clears the bar for treason.
I agree: by that standard, he's a traitor.

My only problem is that I DON'T judge a person by the standards they have set, but by the standards *I* have set, which derive in turn (generally) from the standards set by our society in the exercise of representative democracy.

Your method seems fraught with peril:

YOU: Hey, you stole my wallet! That's not OK! Thief!

ROBBER: On the contrary, I'm OK with your stealing my stuff, if you can manage it. Bring it on. I't's OK to steal. Might makes right.

YOU: Damn it, you got me.

ROBBER: Fuckin' ay I do. . . huh, that's a nice car you got there.

YOU: Shit.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-27-2018 at 03:05 PM.
  #564  
Old 07-27-2018, 04:30 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I agree: by that standard, he's a traitor.

My only problem is that I DON'T judge a person by the standards they have set, but by the standards *I* have set, which derive in turn (generally) from the standards set by our society in the exercise of representative democracy.

Your method seems fraught with peril:

YOU: Hey, you stole my wallet! That's not OK! Thief!

ROBBER: On the contrary, I'm OK with your stealing my stuff, if you can manage it. Bring it on. I't's OK to steal. Might makes right.

YOU: Damn it, you got me.

ROBBER: Fuckin' ay I do. . . huh, that's a nice car you got there.

YOU: Shit.
Note that I said "ethically", not legally or even morally.

Holding someone to the ethical standards they hold others to is not the same as allowing people to create their own laws.

So, it's more

You: Hey you stole my wallet yesterday! That's not okay! Thief!

Robber: On the contrary, I'm okay with stealing your stuff, but you better not even think about stealing mine!

You: I'm taking your car.
  #565  
Old 07-27-2018, 04:33 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,078
The next time a robber tries to take your wallet, let us know how it works out for you when you try to steal his car.

I think that was the point. That method is "fraught with peril".
  #566  
Old 07-27-2018, 04:35 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The next time a robber tries to take your wallet, let us know how it works out for you when you try to steal his car.

I think that was the point. That method is "fraught with peril".
I'm quite certain he meant logical peril, but that doesn't stop this exchange from being amusing.
  #567  
Old 07-27-2018, 05:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
The next time a robber tries to take your wallet, let us know how it works out for you when you try to steal his car.

I think that was the point. That method is "fraught with peril".
This method would be fraught with peril if it were a legal system, sure.

But, I am not proposing a legal system, here. I am only speaking about ethics. Which is why I said, "ethically", rather than "legally".

And it really was a simple aside, to be taken as seriously as Trumps assertions that the democrats should be charged and convicted of treason for not showing proper adulation to him.
  #568  
Old 07-28-2018, 06:32 AM
Mr. Duality Mr. Duality is offline
Just some guy.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The High Plains
Posts: 1,509
Dis it not occur to the OP to make a poll?

My reply is "yes" Trump is a traitor.
__________________
America- Fuck yeah!
  #569  
Old 07-28-2018, 08:44 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Duality View Post
Dis it not occur to the OP to make a poll?

My reply is "yes" Trump is a traitor.
Polls not allowed in GD.
  #570  
Old 07-29-2018, 02:55 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How has he helped Russia out at all? Not only have the sanctions not been lifted, but new ones have been imposed. He just had a meeting with NATO where he demanded the other nations spend more money on defense to counteract Russia. He has also tried to get OPEC to lower the price of oil which the economy of Russia depends on.

Ah, a person with reason. How about bombing Syria a Russian Ally when Putin said it would be an act of war? How about blasting Germany on the pipeline deal, which makes the Russians Rich. Sure-sure, Trump is in Russia's pocket. NOT

The herd-like mentally of the Democrats are at the mercy of the media.

Trump is actually one of the most America first presidents of all time
  #571  
Old 07-29-2018, 07:36 PM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Ah, a person with reason. How about bombing Syria a Russian Ally when Putin said it would be an act of war? How about blasting Germany on the pipeline deal, which makes the Russians Rich. Sure-sure, Trump is in Russia's pocket. NOT

The herd-like mentally of the Democrats are at the mercy of the media.

Trump is actually one of the most America first presidents of all time
These are good points, worth examining.

Putin's words were "act of aggression," which are very carefully chosen words for diplomatic reasons (Trump is oblivious to the concept of carefully chosen words). Had he in fact said "war" then he would have had to initiate a military response after the attack, which was not only by the U.S. but also France and the UK. Using the word "war" would have been reckless, and for all the things Putin is, he is not reckless. Nevertheless, it is true that Trump did not defer to Putin, but I do not know all of the internal and external counsel and pressures he was subject to that led to this decision. I suspect that wanting to make himself look strong compared to Obama was also a huge motivation.

Also, in the post you quoted: "He just had a meeting with NATO where he demanded the other nations spend more money on defense to counteract Russia." This is entirely true but his concern was not so much about defending against Russia as much as lessening the other countries' dependence on the U.S., getting them to spend more of their own money instead of ours. I think the fact that NATO is to form a bloc to oppose Russia doesn't matter so much to Trump, but rather that he doesn't think the U.S. should be the sugar daddy. This argument has merit.

Trump has taken no concrete action that betrays the U.S. to Russia (aside from the still-undecided issue of election interference), and I do think that all this about his meeting with Putin being treason is so much overwrought hand-wringing and pearl-clutching.

But Trump is still a moron who in Helsinki publicly sold out his own country's intelligence organizations in deference to our greatest foe. Before he became president he said that Putin "has been a leader far more than our president [Obama] has been". I get that there is lots to criticize about Obama but publicly praising a dictator (who would like to bring back the Soviet Union) and saying he's better than our own president is not putting America first. Trump defended Putin in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. O’Reilly called Putin a killer. “There are a lot of killers,” Trump says. “Do you think our country is so innocent?" Can you really compare Putin's alleged murders of political foes and at least 25 journalists to anything that has ever happened in the U.S.? Is that statement putting America first?

I agree that Trump is one of the most "America first" presidents, and ironically "America first" has not been good for America. Trump's "America first" mistakenly assumes we can go it alone and be better off than if we cultivate strategic political and economic alliances. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was supposed to put America first through economic protectionism by creating tariffs. This led to retaliatory tariffs by other countries, and ultimately leading to a large decline of trade worldwide. Trump has never picked up a history book, and likely is either getting sycophantic economic advice, or ignoring any advice he is getting. This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Last edited by CookingWithGas; 07-29-2018 at 07:38 PM.
  #572  
Old 08-05-2018, 10:20 AM
Gozu Gozu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I don't mean a metaphorical traitor to specific values, or to the people who support him (despite the harm that will eventually befall them from his policies).

I mean, is he literally acting on Russia's behalf to undermine the United States?

And, if so, what should happen?
AHEM! I created this thread over a year and half ago:

What is the probability that Trump is a traitor?

I will preemptively accept a formal apology from the mod who moved it. Don't sweat it. I sometimes am so ahead of my time that these things happen.

Now, to bask in the gloriousness of a 19-month-old-in-the-making "I told you so."

Mhhh feeels good. Can't help but think it would feel better if my president were not a traitor

proof: https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/st...98253517991938

Last edited by Gozu; 08-05-2018 at 10:21 AM.
  #573  
Old 08-05-2018, 10:51 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozu View Post
Mhhh feeels good. Can't help but think it would feel better if my president were not a traitor

proof: https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/st...98253517991938
The worst part of being a pessimist is always having to say "I told you so."
  #574  
Old 08-05-2018, 11:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,371
Ok, but is it actually illegal?
  #575  
Old 08-05-2018, 11:53 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Ok, but is it actually illegal?
It seems according to the finest SDMB legal minds Giuliani is correct in that laws do not apply to a sitting president.

But, as discussed, you don't have to actually break a law to be a traitor. Treason is a heavy lift legally, but a traitor is anyone who betrays the country.

We have discussed that Trump could give Putin all of our secrets in exchange for financial gain, and that would not actually be treason. But, most would agree that it would be rather traitorous.
  #576  
Old 08-05-2018, 12:48 PM
Gozu Gozu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Ok, but is it actually illegal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk
  #577  
Old 08-05-2018, 01:54 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It seems according to the finest SDMB legal minds Giuliani is correct in that laws do not apply to a sitting president.

But, as discussed, you don't have to actually break a law to be a traitor. Treason is a heavy lift legally, but a traitor is anyone who betrays the country.

We have discussed that Trump could give Putin all of our secrets in exchange for financial gain, and that would not actually be treason. But, most would agree that it would be rather traitorous.
I saw eight years worth of Twitter claims that Obama was a traitor for the Iran deal, for the extra-legal DAPA and DACA programs, and for failing to jail Secretary Clinton.

Because in the view of those Twitterers, Obama was betraying their ideal of how to exercise Presidential power.

I regard your comments as having slightly more evidentiary weight than those did, but still falling very short of what I would consider proven traitorous acts.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 08-05-2018 at 01:55 PM.
  #578  
Old 08-05-2018, 02:27 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I saw eight years worth of Twitter claims that Obama was a traitor for the Iran deal, for the extra-legal DAPA and DACA programs, and for failing to jail Secretary Clinton.

Because in the view of those Twitterers, Obama was betraying their ideal of how to exercise Presidential power.

I regard your comments as having slightly more evidentiary weight than those did, but still falling very short of what I would consider proven traitorous acts.
Yeah! Y'know, because going to a foreign power to ask them to dig up dirt about your political opponent is exactly the same thing as governing in a way a subset of the people (and not the smart subset, it really has to be said) aren't happy about. Evidently, we'll have to turn to the Dope's second-greatest legal mind in order to solve this particular problem.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-05-2018 at 02:30 PM.
  #579  
Old 08-05-2018, 03:05 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I saw eight years worth of Twitter claims that Obama was a traitor for the Iran deal, for the extra-legal DAPA and DACA programs, and for failing to jail Secretary Clinton.
I've also seen twitter claims that Winnie the Poo is a genocidal maniac. Don't believe everything you read on twitter.
Quote:
Because in the view of those Twitterers, Obama was betraying their ideal of how to exercise Presidential power.
There is an ideal, and then there is self service. Not everything that Obama did was what I wanted, but I do feel that everything that he did, even if it was something that I disagreed with, he did because he felt it was what was best for the country and best represented the wishes of the electorate. Trump does what is best for Trump, the consideration as to what benefits the country, or what benefits the people he represents dos not seem to be a consideration.

Now, if someone truly believes that what Obama did was done with the intent of damaging our democratic institutions and processes, then I can see how they would consider him to be a traitor, but, in that case, I would have more of a debate as to what institutions were damaged, how much they were damaged, and what was the intent, rather than over the definition of "traitor".

In the case of Trump, there is no question as to whether our democratic institutions and processes are under attack, and the damage is only mitigated by inertia and "activist" judges, so the only question left is intent. Is his intent to help the people that he represents, or to help himself?
Quote:
I regard your comments as having slightly more evidentiary weight than those did, but still falling very short of what I would consider proven traitorous acts.
I would say that there is more than slightly more evidentiary weight. I also do allow some level of supposition or hypothesizing as to what evidence may end up coming out for public consumption. If someone had said, "Well, what if it comes out that Obama actually is trading secrets to our rivals in exchange for access to a pedophile ring.", then I would agree that if such allegations were to be shown to be true, I would not equivocate on whether he was a traitor, just show me the evidence.

Obama's BIG LIE, for instance, that you could keep your doctor and insurance if you liked them, was only a BIG LIE in the context of someone that you have to search through transcripts in order to find misstatements. That it was more of an optimistic prediction than a lie of fact is also something that is dismissed among those who consider it to be such a heinous deception. That it held true for the vast majority of Americans, and that the reason that it did not hold true for many was for factors outside of Obama's control (like your employer deciding to save money and to drop employee coverage) or for factors that were in your benefit (like your insurance that you were paying for would not cover you if you actually needed it, making the insurance that you "like" worse than just a waste of money) did not matter. That the intent of the BIG LIE was to strengthen the nation's healthcare system, delivering better results to not just those who were currently falling through the cracks on insurance, but to everyone was not important. All that doesn't matter, because he said something that turned out to not be true.

And because Obama once said something that turned out to not be true, that makes him exactly the same as Trump, who has been on record lying thousands of times since taking the oath of office, often on substantive issues or on issues that he is legally embroiled in. For instance, he either lied last year about that meeting that his son had with the Russians, when he dictated that it was about adoptions, or at this time, when he claims that meeting with Russians to dig up dirt on his opponent is perfectly legal, especially as it has since come out that the dirt that the Russians dug up did no come through legal channels.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-05-2018 at 03:08 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017