Seems to me that Bricker is saying that “America’s interests” is not a well-defined term or phrase. I agree. Trump, for instance, thinks it’s in America’s interest to slap tariffs on China, Canada and the EU. I don’t agree.
Bricker, post #434:
No.
But that’s because both of us would understand exactly what was meant. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one.” Leaving him for another man would manifestly and clearly be a betrayal of that, and there are no competing, balancing interests to be calculated. In other words, among the two parties to that conversation, there would be no disagreement about the validity of those interests and the lack of any competing valid interests.
But that’s not true here. Is it? You tell me: what specifically does 'betrayal," mean when you use it to describe Trump’s actions? What specific, particular American interests has he betrayed, and are those interests merely your opinion or something on which there is no real disagreement amongst the vast majority of Americans?
I don’t think anyone seriously claims, though, that Trump is a traitor for supporting a tariff. Almost everyone in the country would be a traitor, then; very few people support NO trade barriers at all.
A traitor isn’t someone who does something that someone else thinks is not in his country’s interests; that’s just philosophical/political disagreement, or just stupidity. (The Smoot Hawley tariff clearly harmed the USA, but that wasn’t its intent.) A traitor, in the sense of being a traitor to one’s country, is someone who does something for the deliberate purpose of harming his country at the behest of its enemy.
I agree. (Assuming you still mean “harm,” as unambiguous harm, as opposed to the argument that the country is ‘harmed,’ by Trump’s immigration policy, or his judicial appointments, or his demands that NATO members pay more than they have been).
Does that describe Trump, then? He has deliberately harmed the United States at the behest of some enemy of the United States?
See any difference?
“Undermine,” standing alone, is pretty clear.
“Undermine the United States” is not, because it does not identify what interests constitutes “the United States.”
What act, specifically, of Trump’s “undermines the United States?” In this thread, people have hinted that his criticism of government agencies qualifies. Does it?
An excellent example. How about his weakening of the EPA? His net neutrality gutting? Do those undermine United States’ interests?
Someone give me a specific act that is alleged to clearly and unambiguously attack a genuine interest of the United States, and is not merely a selection of one valid interest at the expense of another.
I’m listening. All ears.
You would agree then, that violating marriage oaths are a betrayal.
Would violating the oath of office not be a betrayal then?
If he is not doing his best ability to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” then he is betraying that oath.
We’ve already talked about the emoluments clause, and how there are those who feel that violating this, even though no one has legal standing and there is no case law would be a violation of the oath. But, you don’t agree that receiving money from foreign powers is a violation of the clause in the constitution that forbids receiving money from foreign powers.
We’ve talked about other things that trump has done that did served his interests at the expense of the public. Some are completely verified, but are dismissed as small beans, like giving exemptions to companies for violating sanctions, and in return, getting favorable treatment from the Chinese government for his business ventures. I consider that a betrayal of our country, your millage varies.
I guess, rather than playing whack-a-mole with you, and bringing up all the things that he has done, or is suspected of having done, I can ask you, flat out, what would he have to do, in your eyes, to have betrayed his country, and receive the high honor of having you call him a traitor? Is there anything, short of the nearly non-existent charge of treason that would make you come to that conclusion?
Okay, lets take the NATO stuff. If he were doing this rhetoric, with the specific intent of disrupting and ultimately breaking up NATO, by specific request from Putin, in exchange for favorable treatment to his business, would that clear your threshold?
Who cares what you have to say? When you admit that a claim is not a definition, I’ll get back to you.
Maybe Trump really is trying as hard as he can to not take money from foreigners but he just can’t not do it, try proving that he could have tried harder in a court of law.
Check and mate, king me!
Which game are you playing? 
Sure, that would be a betrayal.
But I notice you dodge my question that I’ve asked repeatedly, so let me ask it AGAIN:
The Constitution requires that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (Art II, Sec 3, Clause 5)
The Constitution requires that no unreasonable searches be countenanced (Amendment IV).
If the President orders his Attorney General to prioritize searching drug dealers, to find the slimmest excuse to get those searches approved in court, is that a betrayal of Amendment IV? Or if he orders his Attorney General to prioritize Amendment IV and accept that guilty men will go free in order to preserve Amendment IV’s boundaries, is THAT betrayal?
When Obama instituted DACA, was he betraying his oath to faithfully execute immigration law?
Answer, please.
Correct. Because the Constitution does not say, “No receiving money from foreign powers.” It forbids the acceptance of: “…any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” YOU decided that means money from running a hotel at which foreign guests stay. Not the courts.
If your only argument is “what you consider,” then consider away. I won’t argue with you.
If your argument is that Trump is objectively, unambiguously, a traitor – not just “a metaphorical traitor to specific values,” then I disagree.
Sure, plenty of things. He could order the US armed forces assigned to NATO to attack other NATO troops on the side of Russian while Russian tanks invaded Hungary or Poland, for instance.
Yes.
See that? Answered.
Please answer my questions. It’s only fair.
A claim is not a definition, but the evaluation of a claim’s accuracy is inextricably linked with the definitions of the words used in making the claim.
Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” earned royalties which were paid while he was President. Some of those royalties came from foreign purchasers.
In your view, did that violate the Emoluments Clause?
My answer: no.
Yours?
5-dimensional checker-chess, I believe you’ll find I won two weeks from now.
Could the president happily accept titles, emoluments and such from a Queen or Princess?
Oh, I think you know quid and quo are much more closely linked than that.
If a fact doesn’t exist until a court rules it so, that is one strange way of looking at the world.
No. He’d have to do so with a frown, grimace, or at the very least a cute little moue.
:rolleyes:
Serious answer: the law provides that in construing the meaning of legal statutes, unless the context indicates otherwise, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine. See 1 U.S. Code § 1 - “Words denoting number, gender, and so forth.”
Now: Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” earned royalties which were paid while he was President. Some of those royalties came from foreign purchasers.
In your view, did that violate the Emoluments Clause?
My answer: no.
Yours?
I believe the royalties would have been paid to Obama by the publisher of the book, Wikipedia shows two publishers for “Dreams from my Father”: Times books and Three Rivers Press, both based in New York City, therefore the payer was neither foreign, nor a King.
Yahtzee!