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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Best explained,” is simply your theory, though - it’s not an objective measure.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
Whether the text box is included or left out, that objection is not answered.
Not really concerned, since the lawsuit was dismissed, but certainly I think that their allegation is not a correct assertion about the emoluments clause.
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.