# Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154 "2018-07-18T16:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/421 "2018-07-24T23:22:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do see. > > But there is general agreement as to the meaning of most of the words. > > There is no general agreement, at least in this context, on “America’s interests,” and while “interests” has a general definition that is not in much dispute, the specifics are pretty relevant here. > > Moreover, you haven’t answered – unless I missed it – how your definition squares with the concept of weighing competing interests. If America has an interest in peace, and ALSO an interest in preventing human rights abuses, your definition means that any person is a traitor who accepts a single abuse case in the interests of securing a cease-fire. No matter what choice they take, one of “America’s interests” is undermined. > > So that cannot be the definition of a traitor. In this case, we are seeing not a balance of difficult choices, but self serving ones. In the case where one perpetuates human rights abuses, while also undermining the peace process, all for personal enrichment that benefits no one but himself or those close to him. We are not talking about hard choices, we are talking about blatant self serving ones. America’s interests vs his own. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/422 "2018-07-24T23:23:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do see. > > But there is general agreement as to the meaning of most of the words. > > There is no general agreement, at least in this context, on “America’s interests,” and while “interests” has a general definition that is not in much dispute, the specifics are pretty relevant here. > > Moreover, you haven’t answered – unless I missed it – how your definition squares with the concept of weighing competing interests. If America has an interest in peace, and ALSO an interest in preventing human rights abuses, your definition means that any person is a traitor who accepts a single abuse case in the interests of securing a cease-fire. No matter what choice they take, one of “America’s interests” is undermined. > > So that cannot be the definition of a traitor. Not by piecemeal sniping at every little ‘infraction’, no. “Traitor” is a strong term, which generally requires a strong act or series of acts to justify its use. (Unless the person in question is a democrat.) Honestly I don’t think this is particularly confusing, especially in a thread where it’s been straight-up defined that “acting on Russia’s behalf to undermine the United States” is traitorous behavior. The real question comes down to whether the orange turd in question is acting to undermine the united states, and whether he’s acting on Russia’s behalf. Personally I’d say it’s pretty clear that he’s acting to undermine the united states; he’s crippled various government organizations and slandered others. The real question of course is _why_. The term ‘traitor’ tends to be more applied to people who _switch_ allegiance, if you betray your country to specifically aid another one it’s more clear that your actions were a deliberate betrayal rather than an attempt to aid in a misguided way. And indeed, the appellation ‘traitor’ seems to have really come to the front now that Trump has acted in a way best explained by explicit subservience to Putin. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/423 "2018-07-24T23:25:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, we don’t. Which of “America’s interests,” have to be undermined? Any of them? America has an interest in imprisoning felons and an interest in securing protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the President wants his Attorney General to pursue tactics which emphasize ways to complete searches without getting them thrown out of court, is he a traitor for going against the “interests” of the Fourth Amendment? Or is he a traitor if he instructs his Attorney General to scrupulously observe the Fourth Amendment, because it’s better to let the guilty go free than to weaken the spirit of the Fourth Amendment? > > Both of those are fairly described as “American interests.” Which one makes him a traitor? **Did you not read the text in the quoted box in the middle of the post you quoted? Good god, have you never been told that taking things blatantly and deliberately out of context is foul and dishonest debate?** ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/424 "2018-07-24T23:28:18Z")
Missed edit window to add: ETA: Somewhat realistic scenario. Putin tells Trump that is he doesn’t give him some intel or to direct the military to attack or to not attack, or else some of the trump foundation debts get called in. Would that be traitorous, in your eyes? Assuming that it was proven. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/425 "2018-07-24T23:28:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If that is something you honestly and sincerely worry about as a possibility, then I don’t think rational debate on the subject is possible. If the president were in a state of mind to do such a thing, there would be far, far greater things to worry about than that. And 25th amendment solutions would kick in prior, most likely. That ’ is the check and balance for insanity. It was a hypothetical to make a point. That said I am not sure it is so far fetched. First, presidents often wait till the end of their presidency to issue politically unpalatable pardons so the notion of waiting to the end to avoid consequences is not rocket science. Now imagine the Mueller is waiting on January 20, 2021 with an armful of indictments for Trump. Knowing this Putin tells Trump he’ll set him up like a king in Russia. Whatever he wants. Even give him his own TV show. Clearly Trump doesn’t owe anything to an ungrateful country that did nothing but give him endless amounts of shit. Fuck 'em. Come to Russia and you’ll get the respect deserving of a great man! When you come be sure to bring the names of those spies which is totally legal and ok for you to do! (Putin read all about it on a US message board) Is there anything in Trump’s character so far that makes you think he would refuse and opt instead for a long trial and possible prison for the rest of his life? Anyway, it was meant as a hypothetical albeit one that has just enough of a smidge chance of happening to be scary. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/426 "2018-07-24T23:36:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Reasonable people can debate whether the president has a duty to, say, not break the emoluments clause of the constitution… This one I think is easy. Trump took an oath of office which states in part, “…and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I would submit breaking the emoluments clause is absolutely not in line with that oath. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/427 "2018-07-24T23:57:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > **Did you not read the text in the quoted box in the middle of the post you quoted? Good god, have you never been told that taking things blatantly and deliberately out of context is foul and dishonest debate?** Here is the text that was in that box: 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? (emphasis already present) So far as I can see, nothing I said treats anything in that box out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/428 "2018-07-24T23:58:36Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > In this case, we are seeing not a balance of difficult choices, but self serving ones. In the case where one perpetuates human rights abuses, while also undermining the peace process, all for personal enrichment that benefits no one but himself or those close to him. > > We are not talking about hard choices, we are talking about blatant self serving ones. America’s interests vs his own. In your opinion, or as a matter of clear, objective fact? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/429 "2018-07-25T00:04:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The real question comes down to whether the orange turd in question is acting to undermine the united states, and whether he’s acting on Russia’s behalf. I agree. > [@](#): > > Personally I’d say it’s pretty clear that he’s acting to undermine the united states; he’s crippled various government organizations and slandered others. So what? Perhaps it was those government organizations that were undermining the United States. Let’s say he crippled the EPA – is that traitorous? What if Joe, over here, says that the EPA’s regulations make it difficult for businesses to succeed? Isn’t that also an interest f the United States - for businesses to succeed? See the problem? Your argument is always going to rest on the ideas YOU have – a strong EPA to protect the environment is good and crippling it is bad. But other voters may not agree that the EPA has been a force for good. So I’m asking you to draw a line between choices that advance policies that you don’t agree with, and anything you can offer that is UNAMBIGUOUSLY inimical to the United States with no trade-off benefit. In other words, be objective. > [@](#): > > And indeed, the appellation ‘traitor’ seems to have really come to the front now that Trump has acted in a way best explained by explicit subservience to Putin. “Best explained,” is simply your theory, though - it’s not an objective measure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/430 "2018-07-25T00:07:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Missed edit window to add: > > ETA: Somewhat realistic scenario. Putin tells Trump that is he doesn’t give him some intel or to direct the military to attack or to not attack, or else some of the trump foundation debts get called in. Would that be traitorous, in your eyes? Assuming that it was proven. I’d call that a betrayal of our county’s best interests. And by the definition of traitor we’re using in this thread, which I am accepting _arguendo_, it’s traitorous. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/431 "2018-07-25T00:09:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is the text that was in that box: > > 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? > > (emphasis already present) > > So far as I can see, nothing I said treats anything in that box out of context. It sure as fuck changes the context of my statement that followed the quote: "Bolding mine, definition the OP’s. It seems reasonable to say that within this thread, we know exactly what “traitor” means. And it doesn’t have anything to do with constitutional law. " Specifically it changes the context sufficitently that your response claiming that “No, we don’t” know that within this thread we know what the term means **into complete bullshit**. We know what the term means in the context of this thread because **the OP clarified it**. This entire line of argument that you’re pushing so aggressively is nothing but a pile of **complete and total bullshit**. Now, I haven’t reviewed the thread and am willing to accept that perhaps you’re not the one responsible for this massive hijack, but taking my post as though I hadn’t just pointed out that yes indeedy we have a thread-validated definition that is different from and supersedes your bullshit treason sophistry, _that_ was completely eradicating and disregarding the context of my post. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/432 "2018-07-25T00:09:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This one I think is easy. > > Trump took an oath of office which states in part, “…and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” > > I would submit breaking the emoluments clause is absolutely not in line with that oath. And I agree. But I am concerned that you don’t really understand what conduct the emoluments clause prohibits, especially if you think hotel income generated by foreign visitors is violative of it. (Don’t know that you do, but that was a common claim hereabout during the emoluments discussion). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/433 "2018-07-25T00:12:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? Perhaps it was those government organizations that were undermining the United States. Let’s say he crippled the EPA – is that traitorous? What if Joe, over here, says that the EPA’s regulations make it difficult for businesses to succeed? Isn’t that also an interest f the United States - for businesses to succeed? > > See the problem? Your argument is always going to rest on the ideas YOU have – a strong EPA to protect the environment is good and crippling it is bad. But other voters may not agree that the EPA has been a force for good. So I’m asking you to draw a line between choices that advance policies that you don’t agree with, and anything you can offer that is UNAMBIGUOUSLY inimical to the United States with no trade-off benefit. > > In other words, be objective. This sort of thing is why it’s helpful to know why he’s doing it. As in, and I quote myself, “if you betray your country to specifically aid another one it’s more clear that your actions were a deliberate betrayal rather than an attempt to aid in a misguided way.” > [@Bricker](#): > > “Best explained,” is simply your theory, though - it’s not an objective measure. There are a whole lot more people than me that think Trump’s been acting overtly like a Putin stooge. A _whole_ lot more. Now yes, I agree that a complete Trump sycophant wouldn’t see anything there, but then again I wouldn’t expect to hear a complete Trump sycophant calling him a traitor either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/434 "2018-07-25T00:13:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It sure as fuck changes the context of my statement that followed the quote: "Bolding mine, definition the OP’s. It seems reasonable to say that within this thread, we know exactly what “traitor” means. And it doesn’t have anything to do with constitutional law. " Specifically it changes the context sufficitently that your response claiming that “No, we don’t” know that within this thread we know what the term means **into complete bullshit**. We know what the term means in the context of this thread because **the OP clarified it**. This entire line of argument that you’re pushing so aggressively is nothing but a pile of **complete and total bullshit**. > > Now, I haven’t reviewed the thread and am willing to accept that perhaps you’re not the one responsible for this massive hijack, but taking my post as though I hadn’t just pointed out that yes indeedy we have a thread-validated definition that is different from and supersedes your bullshit treason sophistry, _that_ was completely eradicating and disregarding the context of my post. Nothing in this thread specifically and definitively addresses the problems I outlined: “undermine the United States” is not defined in any meaningful way. Because of this lack, “No, we don’t,” was appropriate and correct in response to your claim that we know what the term means. You cannot (or at least have not) answered what that term means. > [@Bricker](#): > > If the President wants his Attorney General to pursue tactics which emphasize ways to complete searches without getting them thrown out of court, is he a traitor for going against the “interests” of the Fourth Amendment? Or is he a traitor if he instructs his Attorney General to scrupulously observe the Fourth Amendment, because it’s better to let the guilty go free than to weaken the spirit of the Fourth Amendment? Whether the text box is included or left out, that objection is not answered. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/435 "2018-07-25T00:28:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I agree. > > But I am concerned that you don’t really understand what conduct the emoluments clause prohibits, especially if you think hotel income generated by foreign visitors is violative of it. (Don’t know that you do, but that was a common claim hereabout during the emoluments discussion). Huh…well the lawsuit against Trump for violation of the emoluments clause lists: > [@](#): > > (i) the President’s receipt of profits from foreign officials’ use of hotels and restaurants owned by the Trump Organization; and (ii) China’s conferral of trademark protection to the President in February for the name “Trump” in connection with building construction services. > > SOURCE: [https://takecareblog.com/blog/how-the-doj-brief-in-crew-v-trump-reveals-that-donald-trump-is-violating-the-foreign-emoluments-clause](https://takecareblog.com/blog/how-the-doj-brief-in-crew-v-trump-reveals-that-donald-trump-is-violating-the-foreign-emoluments-clause) Are you concerned that those CREW attorneys do not understand the emoluments clause as well? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/436 "2018-07-25T00:40:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh…well the lawsuit against Trump for violation of the emoluments clause lists: > > Are you concerned that those CREW attorneys do not understand the emoluments clause as well? Not really concerned, since the lawsuit was dismissed, but certainly I think that their allegation is not a correct assertion about the emoluments clause. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/437 "2018-07-25T00:46:52Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > There are a whole lot more people than me that think Trump’s been acting overtly like a Putin stooge. A _whole_ lot more. > > Now yes, I agree that a complete Trump sycophant wouldn’t see anything there, but then again I wouldn’t expect to hear a complete Trump sycophant calling him a traitor either. Are any of them neutral observers? More to the point: whether you, and other people, THINK Trump’s been acting overtly like a Putin stooge is not as persuasive as the evidence you can adduce to convince others that it’s true. Right now, for example, I am defending Trump. This is not because I think he’s a great President, or even a good President. I don’t. But I think the inference that he is an actual stooge, as opposed to an unwitting one, is very weak. To convince me, you need evidence far beyond, “Well, he’s acting like it.” But don’t worry about me: you need to convince Congress, or a substantial section of the public. You’re not even doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/438 "2018-07-25T01:00:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > **Did you not read the text in the quoted box in the middle of the post you quoted? Good god, have you never been told that taking things blatantly and deliberately out of context is foul and dishonest debate?** That’s enough of that, begbert. Absolutely no more. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/439 "2018-07-25T01:12:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not really concerned, since the lawsuit was dismissed, but certainly I think that their allegation is not a correct assertion about the emoluments clause. Dismissed for standing and not on the merits. Lucky for us there are more lawsuits still moving through the courts and they are making the same complaint. So there are a lot of attorneys out there who really need to consult with you before filing these cases. > [@](#): > > **The legal battle over Trump’s D.C. hotel could be entering uncharted territory** > Jul 23, 2018 5:21 PM EDT > > The luxury hotel — which opened in 2016, weeks before the presidential election, at a prime location a few blocks from the White House — has led to three lawsuits over the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments. > > Until now all three cases have been stalled in the courts, leaving open the question of whether the constitutional provision — which had never been tested before Trump took office — applies to a sitting president. > > That could change later this month, when a federal judge is expected to decide whether one of the lawsuits can move forward. > > The case was filed by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia on behalf of local businesses and hotels. They alleged the president’s financial stake in the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., hurts competition in the area, because political leaders and government officials, both foreign and domestic, seek to book rooms at the hotel over comparable other hotels nearby, hoping to obtain access to the president. > > In March, Judge Peter Messitte of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the attorneys general had shown enough evidence of unfair competition for the case to proceed. Now, Messitte will rule on whether it can move to a discovery phase. > > SOURCE: [The legal battle over Trump’s D.C. hotel could be entering uncharted territory | PBS NewsHour](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-legal-battle-over-trumps-d-c-hotel-could-be-entering-uncharted-territory) ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2018, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154/440 "2018-07-25T01:33:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > **Dismissed for standing and not on the merits.** > > Lucky for us there are more lawsuits still moving through the courts and they are making the same complaint. > > So there are a lot of attorneys out there who really need to consult with you before filing these cases. And it should be noted that CREW has filed an appeal of Judge Daniels’ ruling on standing. Even that case is not dead in the water. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-trump-plain-and-simple-a-traitor-to-his-country/818154.md?page=23)