Wow…such a display of objectivity…you’ve allowed your hatred of Trump to obscure the fact this happens on a regular basis no matter who is in power…
Would you consider the Clintons traitors? Obama?
Yeah, I didn’t think so…
I am not a fan of Trump, but I am disgusted by the fact that civil discourse is dead in this country, that a seemingly intelligent and tolerant group of people have become a sycophantic mob…sigh…
Stop it, we will be fine as a country, we will overcome this, we have before and we will again…
If I go back and look for all the times you objected to conservatives using the terms “Crooked Hillary”, “Lyin’ Ted” or “Failing New York Times”, what would I find?
Really? Is that an intelligent and well reasoned response? No, not at all…
Please elucidate an argument that would explain why you are disgusted by my ‘attempts to draw blatantly false equivalences’…
What do you believe to be those ‘blatantly false equivalences’? Is it a matter of the Clintons’ behavior? Is it Obama’s actual words? Do you have evidence that the Trump campaign/administration has actually done worse than the cites I’ve provided? I don’t mean Trump-hating sources, I mean actually fact finding…
This is exactly what I am disgusted by - I put forth a logical, cited argument that this happens in many administrations, and you came back with a general statement that did not address my discussion point…sigh…
Please, if you would like to have a civil discourse, I would be more than willing to engage…
Moreover- it wasn’t Clinton’s deal. The State Dept was only one of nine cabinet departments that had to review the deal, and ultimately it was Obama’s call.
The surest sign of lack of understanding is someone saying “Hillary gave 20% of our uranium to Russia”. It wasn’t her deal, and on top of all that NONE of the uranium went to Russia- the company lacks an export license. Russia had plenty of uranium before and after the deal, as does the US.
In the Obama matter, yes he told the puppet Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility in talking about missile reductions after the election. That’s how it works, sometimes delicate negotiations have to wait till after elections. At least there was no Obama pee tape that Medvedev held over his head.
He was a traitor back when he took Russian officials into the Oval Office and there gave them intelligence information which worked for Russia and against the US and Israel. That action is established fact, and I can’t understand why he was allowed to continue receiving classified information after that.
He was a traitor again when he refused to enact the sanctions which Congress had passed and he had signed. This was clearly aid and comfort to Russia, in direct contradiction of US interests.
And his most recent transgression, as he flopped unprepared into a one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin of ALL people, failing even to ensure a recording of the meeting, was almost certainly in the service of Russian interests over those of the USA. His resulting press conference certainly illustrated the ease with which Mr. Putin had turned President Trump’s thoughts back onto a familiar spiral, preventing him from thinking clearly in regards to the true issues at hand. He let Putin slide on a subject of the utmost importance - the sanctity of our elections. He even prevented our press from being able to hold Mr. Putin’s feet to the fire, by going off on a rant placing the blame on another US politician.
If helping Russia to avoid consequences for meddling in our elections isn’t aid and comfort, what is it?
I think it’s important if you’re going to call someone a traitor that it be pretty certain to stand up in whatever court will be judging it. I’m not at all certain that Trump’s actions would fit the US constitution’s definition of treason well enough to convict him.
Did he lie? Yes, about nearly everything.
Did he cheat? Yes, many times.
Did he abuse his office for personal gain? Yes, many times.
Is this enough to impeach him? Sure, there’s no standard for impeachment other than a sufficiently widespread dislike.
Is this enough for him to be convicted of treason? I’m not making any bets.
But wait a second. Is it possible to assume that the policy of the United States was to improve relations with Russia and the detriment to the US and Israel was an acceptable price to pay?
Why is your judgement about the relative value of these competing goals the one that controls this analysis?
Same question.
In 1935, Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the first of the Neutrality Acts. This created a legal embargo on trade in both arms and other war materials with all parties in a war. President Roosevelt violated that law to assist the United Kingdom.
Was he a traitor?
Aid and comfort, within the meaning of the treason statute, requires an enemy in a declared war. Giving aid and comfort to Russia is not treason under the law.
What is “aid and comfort?” The legal definition requires an act that deliberately strengthens declared enemies of United States or that weakens the power of United States to resist and attack such declared enemies.
Now, if we’re talking “traitor,” in a less formal sense than the legal one, then I’d like to know what the definition you’re using is.
“At least there was no Obama pee tape that Medvedev held over his head”…come on, stop it, please do not insult my and the other SDMB readers’ intelligence - had there been a tape, it would have top news…
“In the Obama matter, yes he told the puppet Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility in talking about missile reductions after the election. That’s how it works, sometimes delicate negotiations have to wait till after elections.”
Wait, so, sometimes American officials had delicate discussions with foreign governments and that’s OK in your opinion? So, the recent Trump discussions with Putin are somehow treasonous, but Obama’s were delicate negotiations?
This is exactly the hypocrisy I see all the time in SDMB, yes, I know it’s a Chicago Tribute site, but the so-called ‘tolerant’ liberals here are the most intolerant, closed-minded people I’ve seen politically…they ridicule middle Americans, laugh at people such as myself, to be a libertarian, or, gasp, a conservative, means to be ridiculed as an idiot…I have a undergraduate degree in chemistry, I have a Masters in chemistry, I believe many libertarian/conservative SDMB members keep their mouths shut as they don’t want the attention…
I feel at this point there is very strong circumstantial evidence supporting the inference, but I agree that the known evidence currently falls short of a “reasonable doubt” standard.
Wow! We actually agree on things! Who says civil discourse is dead?
A chemistry degree is essentially meaningless in a political discussion. Unless you can calculate exactly how drunk some of the participants are.
A conservative - in favour of smaller government and lower taxes for example - doesn’t always equal a Trump supporter. Trump’s problem is not “being a conservative” - it’s being corrupt and unethical. That is not a conservative/liberal division but a stupid/smart division, and you are on the stupid side of it at the moment. I suggest you reconsider.
[QUOTE=DavidwithanR;21094478. That is not a conservative/liberal division but a stupid/smart division, and you are on the stupid side of it at the moment. I suggest you reconsider.[/QUOTE]
Gosh, you are right, I am quivering in the face of your logic…
Come on, seriously? I never said I was a Trump supporter, I said I was in favor of intelligent discourse…
“.and you are on the stupid side of it at the moment. I suggest you reconsider.”
Well, you’ve given such a compelling argument…:smack:…sigh…
Did you think I wouldn’t bother to read the whole thread? Not only were none of the three terms in question used in that thread, but there was a good reason: That thread was from early 2015.
Let say for the moment that your a reasonable, moderate conservative. If that’s true, then certainly you must recognize that the Republicans have made an unholy alliance with anti-intellectualism, nationalists, and other extreme elements for maintaining short term political power that is in the long term dangerous for the USA. So, if many reasonable, moderate conservatives won’t punish them at the ballot box, or repudiating their actions in public discourse, for making such alliances, then what does that mean for the country? Answer, it isn’t good.
