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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Dis it not occur to the OP to make a poll?
My reply is “yes” Trump is a traitor.
Polls not allowed in GD.
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.
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/status/1026098253517991938
The worst part of being a pessimist is always having to say “I told you so.”
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.
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.
I’ve also seen twitter claims that Winnie the Poo is a genocidal maniac. Don’t believe everything you read on twitter.
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?
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.