Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

The quid pro quo.

Like I said, it’s circumstantial. Just as your mayor getting a really nice landscaping deal for his house from the same company that he just awarded the park’s contract to. Can you prove quid pro quo? Very rarely. But can you see that something was given on one side, and something was given on the other? Yes.

Right! But the OP’s ask:

That doesn’t seem to invite “speculation and interpretation,” does it? That asks for a literal fact.

Did he put in in general questions, looking for a specific answer, or did he put it in Great Debates, looking for a debate?

Given that you have gotten quite upset anytime anyone does not admit that they do not preface their comments with the fact that they are not omniscient, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and admit what it is that we do and do not know. That you would turn around, and use that concession that I have given to make you more comfortable as a way of scoring internet points does not in anyway diminish my argument here.

You cut the part where I did say that, based on what we do know, the conclusions that I draw is that our country is in fact being harmed by the president following direction from foreign powers, including and especially Russia, because he seeks to personally profit from those relationships.

So, “Yes”, to the OP.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

I don’t believe that anybody on this message board is in a position to get hard facts about Trump’s motivation for any of the shitty things he’s done, so the discussion would necessarily include speculation and inference.

That’s fair.

But even then, I’d say there’s a difference between levels of evidence. “I think this is possible.” “i think this is likely.” “I think this is very likely.” “No other, innocent explanation makes any sense.”

Trump’s diss of our intelligence agencies could be motivated by many things, and given his petty, vindictive nature, I’d say it’s at least as likely to have nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with saying “Fuck you,” to agencies that have refused to offer the proper obeisance.

On the other hand, Trump’s post-hoc explanation (“I meant to say ‘wouldn’t’ instead of ‘would,’”) is manifestly unlikely to be true. His later explanation makes very little sense, and there’s strong evidence for it being a lie.

See what I mean?

[begbert2]

Oh, and to give my clear answer to the OP:

Hi, may name is begbert2 and I’m not omniscient. (“Hi, begbert2.”) In my opinion the scenario that by far most closely explains the facts as I understand them is that many of the things Trump has done he has done because Putin ordered or guided him to do them, and that Trump did these things knowing that they benefited Putin at the expense of the United States.

[begbert2]

@Bricker

That’s fair.

But even then, I’d say there’s a difference between levels of evidence. “I think this is possible.” “i think this is likely.” “I think this is very likely.” “No other, innocent explanation makes any sense.”

Trump’s diss of our intelligence agencies could be motivated by many things, and given his petty, vindictive nature, I’d say it’s at least as likely to have nothing to do with Putin and everything to do with saying “Fuck you,” to agencies that have refused to offer the proper obeisance.

On the other hand, Trump’s post-hoc explanation (“I meant to say ‘wouldn’t’ instead of ‘would,’”) is manifestly unlikely to be true. His later explanation makes very little sense, and there’s strong evidence for it being a lie.

See what I mean?

When it comes to the OP, the presence of a single event with no plausible explanation but “he’s a stooge” is sufficient to render “he’s a stooge” as the only plausible scenario.

Multiple additional examples of events which may or may not have been caused by Trump being a stooge do not then decrease the probability that he’s a stooge; rather the determination that he’s probably a stooge correspondingly increases the speculative chance that stoogehood was the cause of these events as opposed to the other theoretically possible explanations.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@begbert2

Oh, and to give my clear answer to the OP:

Hi, may name is begbert2 and I’m not omniscient. (“Hi, begbert2.”) In my opinion the scenario that by far most closely explains the facts as I understand them is that many of the things Trump has done he has done because Putin ordered or guided him to do them, and that Trump did these things knowing that they benefited Putin at the expense of the United States.

Hi, begbert2.

If I may, I’m not sure Putin would have to or want to “order” Trump to do something because Trump’s opposition-defiance might kick in, but he can certainly phrase his ideas as suggestions and Trump, being easily impressed by power, will gladly play along to feel like one of the big kids.

[begbert2]

@Bryan_Ekers

Hi, begbert2.

If I may, I’m not sure Putin would have to or want to “order” Trump to do something because Trump’s opposition-defiance might kick in, but he can certainly phrase his ideas as suggestions and Trump, being easily impressed by power, will gladly play along to feel like one of the big kids.

Oh, I’ll freely conceded that the spycraft that’s possibly occurring here is likely more complicated than Putin just slipping straightforward orders to Trump under the table. I’ve heard somewhere that there are a few different ‘hooks’ that can be used to turn somebody into an agent; money, prestige, power, fear, things like that. Trump is basically a piece of velcro when it comes to hooks like these, and depending on which thread Putin’s pulling his (and his agents’) approach might be different.

If what’s going on is a straightforward quid pro quo, though, Putin wouldn’t have to necessarily be subtle about his demands. Similarly if he’s threatening Trump’s family or something he could be quite direct. But if he’s trying to butter Trump up he’d clearly have to be more indirect. Business like getting him to butt heads with ally countries might be best done by stoking his ego or something.

I don’t know much of anything about spycraft really, but it’s interesting to think about.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

When it comes to the OP, the presence of a single event with no plausible explanation but “he’s a stooge” is sufficient to render “he’s a stooge” as the only plausible scenario.

What is that single event?

[begbert2]

@Bricker

What is that single event?

Hey, you’re the one who seemed to want to nitpick the various possible explanations for specific events. I was just pointing out that you don’t need to worry about the ones with many plausible alternate explanations, just the ones closer to, how did you put it, “No other, innocent explanation makes any sense.”

For myself, I operate more on a ‘general impression I’ve gotten from the whole situation taken together’ basis, rather than assessing individual events. My take on the situation in general is pretty casual because there’s nothing about my life or behaviors that will really change in the event that Trump is or isn’t an enemy of America. I’m already a liberal, and even if he starts wearing a hammer and sickle I’m not going to take some sort of extralegal action against him. So I can afford to be casual in my assessment of the situation since my opinion doesn’t really matter either way.

And my casual assessment of the situation is that he seems now, and has seemed for a long time, to be suspiciously deferential to and close to Putin and Russia. Is it theoretically possible he’s not? Sure, lots of things are theoretically possible. But I’m not a lawyer and as far as I’m concerned he’s crossed the bar of reasonable doubt. To pull him back across that line would require evidence to the contrary, and seriously, what would prove that?

[Bricker]

@begbert2

Hey, you’re the one who seemed to want to nitpick the various possible explanations for specific events. I was just pointing out that you don’t need to worry about the ones with many plausible alternate explanations, just the ones closer to, how did you put it, “No other, innocent explanation makes any sense.”

For myself, I operate more on a ‘general impression I’ve gotten from the whole situation taken together’ basis, rather than assessing individual events. My take on the situation in general is pretty casual because there’s nothing about my life or behaviors that will really change in the event that Trump is or isn’t an enemy of America. I’m already a liberal, and even if he starts wearing a hammer and sickle I’m not going to take some sort of extralegal action against him. So I can afford to be casual in my assessment of the situation since my opinion doesn’t really matter either way.

And my casual assessment of the situation is that he seems now, and has seemed for a long time, to be suspiciously deferential to and close to Putin and Russia. Is it theoretically possible he’s not? Sure, lots of things are theoretically possible. But I’m not a lawyer and as far as I’m concerned he’s crossed the bar of reasonable doubt. To pull him back across that line would require evidence to the contrary, and seriously, what would prove that?

OK then.

Obviously I don’t share your assessment. I’m not a fan of his, but my critique ends with him being crude, petty, and venal. So far, anyway.

[begbert2]

@Bricker

OK then.

Obviously I don’t share your assessment. I’m not a fan of his, but my critique ends with him being crude, petty, and venal. So far, anyway.

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?

[Bricker]

@begbert2

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.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

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.

[John_Mace]

@k9bfriender

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.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@John_Mace

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?

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

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.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

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.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

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.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

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.

[Hari_Seldon]

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.

[Bricker]

@Hari_Seldon

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.