Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

calimary

(80,693 posts)
Tue May 21, 2013, 03:36 AM May 2013

TREASON. I think the GOP'ers relentlessly persecuting Obama are now guilty of it.

I posted this elsewhere here - but thought it might be worth its own thread. It was a response to rhett o rick who wondered if jonathan karl and his ilk might be guilty of sedition in cooked and concocted "news" coverage that passed off GOP-doctored talking points as the real thing from the White House. I think it smacks of flat-out TREASON. And I think we oughta start a drumbeat about it. Hit these bastards back HARDER than they hit us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022872271

Bill Maher broached the subject last week with Michael Moore - wondering aloud whether all this obstruction was tantamount to treason.

Well, I think he makes a GREAT point, and WE ought to be repeating that meme and starting to bring it to life.

Consider:

At this moment, we still are a nation AT WAR. We presently have thousands of Americans IN HARM'S WAY, IN ACTIVE COMBAT, IN LIVE HOT ZONES. FACING ARMED AND RELENTLESS AND WELL-ARMED ENEMIES. RIGHT NOW. At this very instant. Afghanistan mainly. But ANYWHERE in the frickin' Middle East, their lives are literally on the line.

Now - when a President presides during wartime, that makes him a wartime president, does it not?

And what else is a President known as? How 'bout Commander-in-Chief of ALL United States Armed Forces? Yep, WHOEVER the POTUS is at any given moment, that's his OTHER title. That's what else our nation's Chief Executive is.

Now - what would you call obstructing the Commander-in-Chief of all United States Armed Forces DURING wartime? I think it just might be TREASON. Probably HIGH Treason, at that. Because like it or not, the United States of America is still at war.

So that means Barack H. Obama is not only the current President, he's also Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces. And at THIS time, he's a WARTIME President and a WARTIME Commander-in-Chief. Anybody willfully getting in his way and impeding and obstructing his job is, in effect, committing TREASON. After all, they're obstructing the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces DURING A TIME OF WAR.

What do you think the republi-CONS would be doing now - if it was their guy in the White House, facing this much on-going opposition?

This whole mess needs to be reframed and renamed. And if they were blathering about the "I-word" then I think it's high time we started bringing up the "T-word."

It's time to fight these bastards with EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT. TREASON. That is what the GOP is now GUILTY of. They've even got the "G-for-guilty" in GOP already in place.

I'd like your take on this. I think it's messaging we should start circulating. Maybe it'll catch on.

What do you think?

62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TREASON. I think the GOP'ers relentlessly persecuting Obama are now guilty of it. (Original Post) calimary May 2013 OP
Damned right it should be circulated. DemocratsForProgress May 2013 #1
I'm just fed up. You bad-guys wanna start insinuating about the "I-word"? calimary May 2013 #4
Congressional Democrats and Democratic strategists should be pushing this truth BlueCaliDem May 2013 #33
Yeah. Summer Hathaway May 2013 #2
Bill Clinton said it best RobertEarl May 2013 #3
It's disturbing how closely your argument mirrors the neo-cons of the previous administration. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #5
Ah, the old false-equivalency thing again. Not relevant here. Not by a long shot. calimary May 2013 #6
Obstructionism is not treason. It just isn't. So by calling them treasonous... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #8
good luck with that... mikeysnot May 2013 #29
It is during wartime. You know, that period where the Constitution really doesn't count by design? nebenaube May 2013 #57
That is exactly what the neo-cons said! Gravitycollapse May 2013 #61
That is my thought. It can be argued that the Republicans are giving aid and comfort to the JDPriestly May 2013 #13
Spot on! MNBrewer May 2013 #25
It's disturbing how you're on a Democratic Party supporting site and appear against the OP's BlueCaliDem May 2013 #34
Treason is defined in law in the Constitution, Article III. longship May 2013 #7
Great post oberliner May 2013 #14
Yes, the extremist 20 have committed treason. Sedition is illegal graham4anything May 2013 #9
as is libel... SQUEE May 2013 #23
Why did you pick me to reply to?Especially as 40 other replies said the same thing. graham4anything May 2013 #26
in the flow of this thread, yours is the first to outright say it, so I replied... SQUEE May 2013 #28
sedition. pansypoo53219 May 2013 #10
Google "alien and sedition act" longship May 2013 #12
Nope dreamnightwind May 2013 #11
Good luck with all that RandiFan1290 May 2013 #15
Your argument is, well, sickening. cali May 2013 #16
Yes, of course we should. graham4anything May 2013 #27
of course we should sit down and shut up for any war time President? SICK cali May 2013 #36
So G4A, we're you a big Nixon supporter? onenote May 2013 #42
Their behavior is definitely anti-American and unpatriotic. I get that people have differing views spicegal May 2013 #17
No, not in a legal sense sakabatou May 2013 #18
I think the obstructing R's in congress and in fact at all levels of government have been geckosfeet May 2013 #19
H.L. Mencken and Eugene V. Debs might want you to rethink your stance.. SQUEE May 2013 #20
Which of our political enemies do you want to see executed first? el_bryanto May 2013 #21
........................ Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #22
1. We don't recognize "High Treason" in the US MNBrewer May 2013 #24
But it was enough to silence the opposition, wasn't it? eom BlueCaliDem May 2013 #35
While I didn't stop my criticism MNBrewer May 2013 #39
"Seems like an idiotic means to an end." BlueCaliDem May 2013 #43
Don't get me wrong MNBrewer May 2013 #47
I think you need to read the Constitution. nt hack89 May 2013 #30
It's what they would be screaming if this were a Republican administration... Pragdem May 2013 #31
It should be punished politically onenote May 2013 #41
Welcome to DU, Pragdem! I'm very appreciative of all the comments, both pro and con. calimary May 2013 #55
This is a bad idea that can't even survive its own standard for a mere 55 posts. Nuclear Unicorn May 2013 #60
Treason has a very specific definition. MineralMan May 2013 #32
I hate it when DUers openly display their ignorance of the Constitution onenote May 2013 #37
In my short time on this forum, I've noticed quite a bit of that. Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #51
To paraphrase William Pitt: Derp Jeff In Milwaukee May 2013 #58
The stragest aspect to me is that people don't understand one of our basic principles of law Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #62
Oooooh. TREASON, probably HIGH TREASON? Nye Bevan May 2013 #38
That was awesome Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #40
If it could be shown that certain GOP officials ucrdem May 2013 #46
+1 MNBrewer May 2013 #48
We're Seeing History Repeat Itself ChoppinBroccoli May 2013 #44
I can't get over how absolutely terrible and idiotic this op is and I can't believe cali May 2013 #45
I thought I was the ony one. Dpm12 May 2013 #49
I think you are close to a tour de force of hyperbole. Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #50
no. fishwax May 2013 #52
You are wrong on this one. This is not Treason. SlimJimmy May 2013 #53
No. The T word is carefully defined in the Constitution nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #54
The Bill of Rights applies all the time. BlueCheese May 2013 #56
None of it is treason treestar May 2013 #59

calimary

(80,693 posts)
4. I'm just fed up. You bad-guys wanna start insinuating about the "I-word"?
Tue May 21, 2013, 03:47 AM
May 2013

Well, then here's the "T-word" for ya, straight up yer ass.

Seriously. If OUR side blocked every damn breath and eyebrow hair of an opposition president, what do you think the CONS would do? Demand we stop? Hell. How well has THAT worked?


BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
33. Congressional Democrats and Democratic strategists should be pushing this truth
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:20 AM
May 2013

and calling out the Republicans who dare mention the "I" word, and counter with the "T" word. That's what Republicans would do. But for some reason, they appear loathed to do that because maybe they're afraid to be seen as "group-thinkers", which is apparently a dirty word among all those on the center left and left.

Elected Democrats need to unite behind their president, but again, they appear loathed to do it. It's what frustrated me so much that they had no problem uniting behind pResident Bush most of the time, but it seems as if they just can't do the same for a president of their own party.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
3. Bill Clinton said it best
Tue May 21, 2013, 03:46 AM
May 2013

Republicans don't believe government can work and when they get elected to govern they set out to prove it.

Treason may not be applicable, but I sure do think they could have the 'Patriot Act' hung around their necks. That would be some ironical justice, eh?

One thing for certain, they are not acting in the best interest of the nation by so blindly opposing the duly elected president. But when did republicans ever act in the real interest of the nation? Nixon, bless his resigning heart, was the last of that genre. Certainly his resigning was good for the nation. They all should do the same.

calimary

(80,693 posts)
6. Ah, the old false-equivalency thing again. Not relevant here. Not by a long shot.
Tue May 21, 2013, 03:55 AM
May 2013

And btw - it's not the same thing. There was virtually NO effort at serious obstruction from the Democratic side against bush/cheney. NOTHING. NOTHING on the order of what we've seen now. NOBODY, as much as we despised bush and knew he stole the election, NOBODY set about to deliberately and actively, EN MASSE, obstruct. NOBODY on our side gathered in a little hotel conference room on the bush/cheney inauguration night to plot his political demise and how to shut him down. I remember very clearly. The media didn't. The Dems didn't. And those of us who were seriously upset about the hijacking that had just occurred (indeed, it was tantamount to a coup d'etat) had to find refuge in little groups here on the internet, and some grumbling in a few coffee shops here and there - among those of us to whom nobody listened.

There was no big uproar. There was no party-wide collusion to ruin that "presidency" OR a declaration of, okay, war if you will, that Job One for the Democrats was to make sure bush/cheney was a one-term president. NONE. Believe me, I searched! I WANTED to see this very badly because I thought it was just, and well-deserved. And there was NONE.

And we groused for several months until this one day in September 2001, when suddenly EVERYONE fell into line behind bush/cheney, and pretty much stayed that way, silenced, unquestioning, our side's leaders scrambling to find places to stand staunchly behind those two fiends. bush/cheney never EVER faced the kind of organized relentless pile-on opposition that President Obama has had to deal with - EVERY FUCKING MINUTE OF EVERY FUCKING DAMN DAY that he's been in office.

It's not a fair comparison you're making. Sorry.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
8. Obstructionism is not treason. It just isn't. So by calling them treasonous...
Tue May 21, 2013, 04:16 AM
May 2013

You are falsely accusing them of treason. Which is exactly what the neo-cons did to us.

 

nebenaube

(3,496 posts)
57. It is during wartime. You know, that period where the Constitution really doesn't count by design?
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:28 PM
May 2013

n/t

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
13. That is my thought. It can be argued that the Republicans are giving aid and comfort to the
Tue May 21, 2013, 05:01 AM
May 2013

enemy. But then, what they are doing is politics, dirty politics. It comes close, but it probably isn't treason. The only reason that I say it comes close is that the Republicans are making stuff up. They have no basis for accusing Obama of mistakes. Their theories are not based on fact.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
34. It's disturbing how you're on a Democratic Party supporting site and appear against the OP's
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:29 AM
May 2013

rational post that's in support of a Democratic president.

We're at war, GC, and I'm not only referring to Afghanistan. The Republicans understand that. Their TeaBagger sheep understand that. Corporate Media understand that. Big Corp, Big Agri, Big Pharma, Big ProfitCare all understand that, and they all unite behind and aid and abet the Republicans' attack of this president and Democrats in order to gain absolute power. And they love people like you who are supposed to be on our side because people like you are told not to "group think" and " be independent and vote your conscience", and all that other bullshit that only results in weakening our ranks (recall the 2000 election and the 2010 mid-terms).

Of course, I'm assuming here that you're on the left side of center to begin with. I could be wrong since this is a public message board and anyone can sign up for an account.

Anyway, the plutocracy understands the war strategy: divide and conquer.

It's time we underscore how successful it's been and unite behind our president and our political party to kill that strategy and win this war.

longship

(40,416 posts)
7. Treason is defined in law in the Constitution, Article III.
Tue May 21, 2013, 04:02 AM
May 2013

Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Here it is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Of course, the charge of treason has been historically used to subjugate political opponents which is precisely why the founders saw fit to explicitly define it in the Constitution so that it cannot be used as a political weapon.

Calling political opponents treasonous is always the cheap way out. Instead of explaining why their policies are wrong, some label them with "treason". Fortunately our founders anticipated that and took the trouble to actually define the word legally so that shenanigans like this, whether from the left or the right, don't have to be taken seriously.

If a person has an argument against a policy, it can and should be presented with a cogent argument. But just like I would malign the right wing screaming treason about Obama, I have to call this out.

Treason means a very specific thing in the USA. Using the word as a political tool is, at best, hyperbole.

I am very uncomfortable with these charges coming from professed Democrats.

Does anybody here think that putting the word in all caps makes the argument more compelling?

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
23. as is libel...
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:36 AM
May 2013

Hey you can throw around unfounded allegations, that might seem as if they fit.

Just a point that legal definitions are what they are, and I in no way believe you to be guilty of such, but neither are they, other laws broken? oh yes, most definately, but as for the Big "T", or sedition, well Inigo Montoya said it best I think
" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

longship

(40,416 posts)
12. Google "alien and sedition act"
Tue May 21, 2013, 04:46 AM
May 2013

To understand why charges of sedition or treason of political opponents may not be the best thing to do.

These labels are mere hyperbole. Thank goodness they have no strength in law in the US.

I am very uncomfortable with the use of these highly charged labels for political reasons. Nothing good ever comes of this.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
11. Nope
Tue May 21, 2013, 04:27 AM
May 2013

War-time POTUS = POTUS, should not have different standards. Seems pretty obvious. If the opposition actually commits treason, fine, but no way should obstructionism of a so-called war0time president (which to me is just a president) be elevated to a treasonous offense. That would be a very dark road to legitimize.

Fight them some other way, please. Filibuster reform should have been a no-brainer. I think the reason they wouldn't do it is they're afraid they'll lose the Senate in 2014. But the curent system is a terrible system, it has only worked because no party was ever willing to push the rules to an absurd degree like the current Republicans in the Senate have done. So it really should be reformed, regardless of who's in power. Silent holds, 60 votes just to bring something to the floor, every freakin' time, that's ridiculous. Fight them there.

Also fight them on the validity of these scandals. They're pretty much laughable and will lead nowhere.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
16. Your argument is, well, sickening.
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:04 AM
May 2013

fuck. according to your "logic", we're all supposed to sit down and shut up for a wartime president.

fuck that.

and fuck the bullshit treason meme with a rusty rake.

shortsighted, to put it mildly.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
36. of course we should sit down and shut up for any war time President? SICK
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:34 AM
May 2013

be good little germans no matter what? FUCK THAT

onenote

(42,374 posts)
42. So G4A, we're you a big Nixon supporter?
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:56 AM
May 2013

We're you offended that millions of us protested his administration during the Vietnam War? Do you think that it was treason for legislators to vote out articles of impeachment against him? Do you actually think about what you write?

spicegal

(758 posts)
17. Their behavior is definitely anti-American and unpatriotic. I get that people have differing views
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:16 AM
May 2013

on politics and the way things should be done in government, but the GOP obstructs for the sake of obstructing, because their intention is to gum up the works, for no other reason then to hurt the president. It's destructive for the country and nothing gets done. They obstruct over the most benign things. They essentially prevent the government from running. Does that fit the definition of treason? don't see why not.

geckosfeet

(9,644 posts)
19. I think the obstructing R's in congress and in fact at all levels of government have been
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:55 AM
May 2013

guilty of promoting their political agenda at the expense of good government and the best welfare of the country since mid/late 2008. Simply put the interests of the country have been compromised for their political goals. If that can be legally represented and supported in a trial for treason I say lets go for it. Bring on the special prosecutors because congress is so partisan that they could never objectively evaluate their behavior.

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
20. H.L. Mencken and Eugene V. Debs might want you to rethink your stance..
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:30 AM
May 2013

Try a little light reading to get you up to speed on what you are advocating.
Start with The Espionage Act of 1917 / Sedition Act of 1918, and remember this was under Wilson. Not Hoover, Reagan or the Shrub....

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
21. Which of our political enemies do you want to see executed first?
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:34 AM
May 2013

That's what treason means - it's a capital crime. So Karl Rove? Rush Limbaugh? Mitch McConnel? Who should go to the gas chamber/electric chair/firing squad first?

Bryant

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
24. 1. We don't recognize "High Treason" in the US
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:38 AM
May 2013

2. Didn't the Republicans make the same stupid charges against those who opposed Bush's Iraq fiasco? I seem to remember that happening.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
39. While I didn't stop my criticism
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:44 AM
May 2013

It was enough... but are you saying that would be a good thing or a bad thing now?

Seems like an idiotic means to an end.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
43. "Seems like an idiotic means to an end."
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:04 AM
May 2013

And that's exactly what the plutocrats in this country want you to think.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
47. Don't get me wrong
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:58 AM
May 2013

I'm all for the trial and execution of plutocrats. But not for silliness like what is discussed in the OP.

I'm talking about their ACTUAL crimes. David and Charles Koch, for example.

 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
31. It's what they would be screaming if this were a Republican administration...
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:56 AM
May 2013

Blocking a democratically elected President from passing the agenda that won him the office SHOULD carry some kind of punishment.

I don't know if treason is the correct word for it, but I have thrown it around a few times myself.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
41. It should be punished politically
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:53 AM
May 2013

But suggestions that its a criminal act for legislators who were elected while opposing the president's agenda to continue to oppose it is not just nonsensical, its dangerous.

calimary

(80,693 posts)
55. Welcome to DU, Pragdem! I'm very appreciative of all the comments, both pro and con.
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:34 PM
May 2013

Glad you're here! And thanks for weighing in. I WANTED comments because I wanted to know what people here thought.

Perhaps it's not a reasonable solution. But the problem I have is - we've TRIED all the reasonable solutions.

Compromise? Yeah, look how well THAT one has worked.

Stern words? Nothing happens. Maybe not stern enough? And those on our side, if they even utter stern words, do NOTHING to back it all up.

Meeting them halfway? Yeah, look how well THAT one's worked. john boner once said openly that he got 98 percent of what he wanted. And Obama got two percent? How is THAT a reasonable solution? Especially since even 98% wasn't enough for boner and his crowd.

Extreme? Well, in the last regime, they threw all kinds of crap at us, called us unAmerican, people lost their jobs for speaking out, people were ostracised and shunned and ignored for speaking out. NO ONE on the other side was given much credence, attention, face-time, voice time on the radio, the press was against us, and even our own reps were against us and wouldn't listen. Precious few stood up and spoke out and tried to stop it. And too many of our reps just fell in line like good little puppy dogs and didn't object or resist or try to make a stink or try to force their way onto shows like "Meet the Press" where it was wall-to-wall bush/cheney supporters with the drumbeat for war given a FULL pass and 100% of the attention and coverage.

Make them pay a political price? How? By getting them voted out? How's that working in the red states - especially those that are FIRMLY and resolutely still red? How does that work against jerrymandering and politicking and the mass media and talk radio and Pox Noise machinery that somehow ensures that people in those red states keep voting for the GOP even when it is SOUNDLY against their own best interests? When, by now, most of them have been brainwashed by resolute and repetitive propagandizing so they won't listen to reason now, in any case. WHAT political price? That doesn't seem like a very realistic option at the moment, at all. Look, when you have a candidate as bad and as damaged as a mark sanford, who's a PROVEN sleeze and a cheat and a liar and a deserter (not just of his wife and sons but his whole frickin' STATE to run off to Argentina to see his backstage girl), and a deadbeat dad - and he STILL gets elected over a very capable Dem - mainly because the constituents in that district are SO DEEPLY inculcated with the GOP belief system that they cannot see beyond it, no matter what - what can be done? When you give them facts and they still reject. When you warn them and they still don't listen. What's to be done? What will make them stop?????

Perhaps the "T-word" isn't the answer. Perhaps sedition isn't the answer. So what IS? I just think we consider playing real hardball and putting THEM on the defensive for a change. Making them stop and think for a moment before they go further? Assuming, of course, that it's even possible to do that. I mean, what keeps assholes like darrell issa at it, term after term after term? We don't seem able to get him voted out, here in California. He keeps heading back to Washington time after time, and what was everybody saying about him when the GOP took over the House? The speculation was on high about how soon he'd start investigating Obama's bellybutton lint as the CONS did with Bill Clinton. And sure enough, that's what he's doing now.

What's to be done? I'm looking for other options because I think we need to think outside the box, and do something uncharacteristic for Dems - and fight back with TEETH. NOT the Harry Reid way, trusting the GOP to be reasonable on a handshake. It just seems as though the options we have, the tools we have, and all the approaches we've been trying, haven't worked. I think we need a political 2x4 to smack them across the faces and make them stop. Or at least stop and think for a moment. I don't see anything else working. And you know what Einstein said about continuing to do the same stuff that gets you the same bad results, but you keep doing it just hoping you'll get some different results for a change. Einstein defined that as insanity.

And at least to me, this situation is untenable, and unsustainable. I think we need our own "shock & awe." We've taken the high road for years with this opposition, which has only gotten stronger and more forceful and better-financed, and metastasized like a cancer, and nothing helps. And we the people are not served. And the people's business and interests and needs are not being addressed. All because of politics. I just think the status quo is unsustainable. It simply can't go on like this. I think we have to figure out another approach. We can't just let things go on as they are. This shit has to stop. The persecution of Obama has to stop. Or else, it's just going to continue and get worse - simply for the joy of persecuting Obama and keeping him hobbled so he can't get the people's business done. I'll bet we're stuck with mitch mcconnell again next year, for another six years. How's THAT for reinforcing bad behavior?

I also know that the REAL solutions will be 30 to 40 years in the making, as our side finally wakes up to the realization that we have to fight the way the bad guys have - with this well-orchestrated and funded campaign that started back in the early 70s with the Powell Doctrine and others - to put corporate America firmly in charge of this country and everyone in it, via think tanks and foundations and groomings of new operatives and candidates and future "journalists" to the corporate way of thinking. It was in reaction to all the social justice that the 60's brought to America. There was a Bill Moyers post about it here on DU a few days back, and here's what it was talking about:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/

And if we resolutely go about that (assuming our Dems and progressive groups even have the wherewithal attempt this), then maybe in 30 or 40 years we'll dominate the national mindset again. Which would be great. But it does NOTHING to address what's happening at this moment.

I appreciate everybody for weighing in, even those who've dumped on me and insulted me. Because I think we need to start talking about this OPENLY. Maybe even the sheer fact of bringing it up might open a way to bring some sense to at least a FEW on the other side, to stop this madness. Or at least slow it down.





Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
60. This is a bad idea that can't even survive its own standard for a mere 55 posts.
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:49 PM
May 2013

Pragdem wrote --

Blocking a democratically elected President from passing the agenda that won him the office SHOULD carry some kind of punishment.


To which you agreed, and in the course of that agreement you stated --

Make them pay a political price? How? By getting them voted out? How's that working in the red states - especially those that are FIRMLY and resolutely still red?


Can you see where you tripped over your own words?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
32. Treason has a very specific definition.
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:08 AM
May 2013

What you describe does not fit that definition. See the Constitution of The United States for details on what treason consists of.

When you overstate your objections to the activities of a political party by accusing it of a crime that doesn't fit, you destroy your own argument. Make your argument accurate and it will mean something. What you wrote doesn't.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
37. I hate it when DUers openly display their ignorance of the Constitution
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:34 AM
May 2013

I'm glad that several DUers have called out the OP for failing to recognize that there is a very specific and very narrow definition in the Constitution of what amounts to "treason."

Some of us have protested other administrations during wartime and were labelled traitors for doing so. We weren't, and neither are the repubs and saying that they are only makes the person saying it look stupid.

 

Nimajneb Nilknarf

(319 posts)
51. In my short time on this forum, I've noticed quite a bit of that.
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:11 AM
May 2013

The foundation documents, such as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, drafts of the Bill of Rights, etc. are all easily accessible to anyone with a computer or hand-held device.

Horse, water. Please drink. Pretty please?

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
58. To paraphrase William Pitt: Derp
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:34 PM
May 2013

There is no number of threads you can create in an attempt to teach people the definition of "treason." People still think that anybody who does something that they vaguely don't care for is guilty of it.

 

Nimajneb Nilknarf

(319 posts)
62. The stragest aspect to me is that people don't understand one of our basic principles of law
Wed May 22, 2013, 10:43 AM
May 2013

Being that anything that has not been explicitly defined as a crime under the law is not a crime.

Besides that, the idea that people think they should be able to declare some act that they don't like as a crime seems petulant and childish.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
38. Oooooh. TREASON, probably HIGH TREASON?
Tue May 21, 2013, 09:42 AM
May 2013

Guess what, this OP is STUPIDITY, probably HIGH STUPIDITY.

And 24 recs for this crap? The mind boggles.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
46. If it could be shown that certain GOP officials
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:25 AM
May 2013

had foreknowledge of the Benghazi attack, I imagine that could be construed as treason if they did nothing to prevent it. But they'd have to be charged and tried as individuals and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Unless it does.

ChoppinBroccoli

(3,764 posts)
44. We're Seeing History Repeat Itself
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:05 AM
May 2013

When the Republicans tried desperately to find a scandal to pin to Bill Clinton, it provided the onus for 9/11 to happen. Their obsession with "getting Clinton" started that ball rolling downhill. And the series of events that unfolded thereafter (including the "installation" of Bush into the White House) basically caused 9/11.

And now they're doing it again.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
45. I can't get over how absolutely terrible and idiotic this op is and I can't believe
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:12 AM
May 2013

it has 27 recs.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
54. No. The T word is carefully defined in the Constitution
Tue May 21, 2013, 12:05 PM
May 2013

This is ugly, but not treason. At least not as defined by law

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
56. The Bill of Rights applies all the time.
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:53 PM
May 2013

Whether it's a real war, like World War II, or some indefinite vague war on terror. Indeed, one might say it applies especially during the more challenging times.

The GOP's dirty politics is low and harmful, but it's not even close to treason. And using the backdrop of this never-ending war on terror, which has already been used to justify power grabs by both Bush and Obama, is a doubly dangerous idea.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
59. None of it is treason
Tue May 21, 2013, 06:36 PM
May 2013

Though they certainly said so of our objections when Bush was starting these wars.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TREASON. I think the GOP'...