… by being legally elected to office?
I’m a lefty. I’ve voted in the past two primaries for Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, respectively. I think the Tea Partiers are wrong and Rand Paul’s mother dresses him funny. But they’re merely wrong, not treasonous.
Right. Treason, in the United States, has a very specific legal meaning.
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
[/QUOTE]
What the Tea Party is doing, regardless of how bad it is, isn’t treason. The founders of our country were afraid of Treason prosecutions and the abusive British courts who construed treason every which way.
Why not… the republicans are currently blaming the democrats … and then many of them are sounding like freaking kindergardeners with the Obamma-this and Obamma-that and Obummer and other pretty damned juvenile name bashing.
Here we go again; the standard right wing attempt to pretend there’s no difference between the two sides. It’s easier than trying to defend something as worthless as the Republicans I suppose.
The Republicans have no interest in a solution. They want as big a disaster as possible, they’ve stated in the past that making Obama a one term President is their top goal. And they don’t care if they create a second Great Depression in the process.
And in the process the FF wrote a definition that has gaping loopholes. That’s why defenders of the Right keep bringing that definition up; it’s such a narrow definition they can use it to handwave away just about anything. It’s just another way they avoid having to actually defend their actions.
If there is a plan that gets thru both Houses by Monday, Obama is not going to veto it.
I see no reason why we shouldn’t call them treasonous. They understand the word differently than the sane, so according to their definition, they are treasonous.
In my hypothetical, there is no difference. Both result in “default” for purely political purposes. Too freakin’t bad if Obama doesn’t want to have another debate on this topic before the next election. And too freakin’ bad if the Tea Partiers can’t get their constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Neither of those things is worth risking economic calamity.
No reason, that is, if you don’t mind sounding as stupid as they do.
John Mace, a hypothetical, if you don’t mind.
You are President of the United States. Tomorrow, 40 Senators of the opposing party tell you that they will block the funding necessary to protect the nation’s nuclear weapons unless you both convince your party to pass, and you sign, a bill that puts the effective tax rate at 80% on those making below $35,000 in order to pay for a subsidy for the building of polo grounds.
Is that just politics as usual, or something more pernicious? Does it matter if they sincerely believe that it is good policy to tax the poor to pay for polo? Who properly bears the responsibility if the Senators end up filibustering the weapons funding bill?
Just want to see if we’re all on the same basic page.
We aren’t talking about a “hypothetical”. We are talking about the real world, where one side is utterly inflexible, amoral and irrational and the other side isn’t. They aren’t the same.
Hey, you just discovered the trick to the 2-party system. Good cop/bad cop.
I don’t see how that is analogous to the debt limit situation. The Republicans want a two step process so they can do some political grandstanding before the next election. While that may be shameless, it’s hardly comparable to enacting a punishing tax rate on poor people to subsidize the recreation of the rich.
Yes, we are. It’s a standard debate procedure. If you don’t like them, or find them difficult to comprehend, then perhaps you should spend more time in the non-debating forums.
Every time I think I’ve seen it all I read something like this. Treason? Are you mad?
It appears the OP simply wanted to rant since he hasn’t returned to defend his thesis.
No, the first analogy was better, although not perfect.
The bill Obama is - we assume, for the sake of argument - vetoing is analogous to the “ransom”. When the bill arrives at his desk he has two options - to sign it or to veto it. Those are the only two options available to him. There’s no hostage situation where the SWAT team gets to choose between handing over the ransom or shooting the hostage. There’s no analogy there.
But here’s a better analogy:
The situation at hand is in fact more similar to a ticking bomb scenario. The timer was set by the Republican party - not by the Teaparty congressmen - but the republican leadership. They choose to - for the first time in the nations history - use the debt ceiling and the threat of default as leverage.
Here’s where the analogy gets a tad bit clumsy in order to stay accurate: The timer mechanism is constructed to work in such a way that when a certain amount of money is wired to a certain account, the bomb is defused. The president is faced with the choice of forking over the ransom or see the bomb go off.
And the ransom as per today is that Congress has to pass a new amendment to the US constitution or the debt limit will not be raised. That was a demand from 24 representatives (out of 435!) in the House who the republican leadership chose to accomodate rather than deal with house democrats instead.
That’s insane. That’s completely unacceptable and frankly takes a big huge dump on how representative democracy is supposed to work. If you don’t instinctively feel that that is wrong, I can only ask you to consider the magnitude of what’s really happening one more time.
I’ll try to keep this post within the bounds of GD.
Calling people who oppose one politically “traitors” is a action of both ignorance and maliciousness. I don’t care if it comes from the right or the left; it’s wrong.
Aaron Burr was a traitor, Ezra Pound was a traitor, Aldrich Ames was a traitor.
Those who fight for what they believe is best for the country are not traitors. They may be wrong, misguided, and stupid, but they are not traitors.
It’s despicable to call one’s political opponents traitors simply because they disagree on what is best for the country. People who do so should be ashamed of themselves.
Yes, there is. The SWAT team can just shoot the hostages and end the situation. It’s a reckless, stupid, harmful thing to do. Just like Obama vetoing a bill because he doesn’t want to debate the topic again in 6 months-- reckless, stupid and harmful.
Agree on principle, but speaking for me I just dont give much of a sh-t in this particular situation. The Tea-partiers are way out of line and have been for quite some time. They’re about to do serious damage to the economy - the world economy even - or else pervert the political process.
They deserve to be - need to be - named and shamed. I just dont give a rats as if every invective they get thrown their way is perfectly fair or not. I know for sure most of them wouldnt even ask themselves the question if the shoe was on the other foot (as it usually is).
No thats just incorrect. Obama’s got two options. The SWAT team’s got endless options. The SWAT team can opt to do nothing unless the hostage takers are about to pull the trigger. Obama can’t, or rather that’s the choice you want to call him “shooting the hostages”.
There is no analogy. Stop digging.
ETA: Perhaps I was being unclear in my first post. What I meant to say was “There’s no hostage situation where the SWAT team only gets to choose between handing over the ransom or shooting the hostage.”
I am so tempted to just send this to the BBQ Pit, except that I think Hari Seldon wanted an actual discussion and not a rant.
That said, there is no way that the actions of anyone involved in this debacle is “treasonous.” Even those who want to radically change the government are not behaving in a way to physically overthrow it.
(I am also a bit amused, (sadly not surprised, but amused), that several posters have equated the Republicans with the Tea Party. Have none of you noticed the large number of pundits speculating that Boehner is doomed because he cannot control the radical fringe of his own party? There are factions within factions among both of the parties and no one has a hegemony to compel their desires.)