The politics of treason: Trump & the Dems are reckless in calling each other traitors

[TalkRadio]

The politics of treason: Trump & the Dems are reckless in calling each other traitors

Suddenly Washington appears to be a den of traitors. For months, various Democratic politicians and commentators have all but accused President Trump or his family of treason. Now Trump has said Democratic lawmakers who failed to clap at his State of the Union address are “un-American” and traitors.

These accusations reflect the distemper that has taken hold of our politics. Calling opponents traitors has a long and dark history in our country — a history we would be wise not to repeat.

Not long after the president’s inauguration, Democrats began alleging more and more serious crimes committed by Trump and his family. For months, commentators and lawmakers referred incorrectly to the crime of collusion with Russians — despite the absence of such a crime in the federal code. It then became allegations of obstruction or loosely defined conspiracies or election fraud.

Politicians who traffic in the rhetoric of treason are betraying more than their oaths to uphold the Constitution, they are betraying us — a pluralistic people bonded to each other by a common constitutional covenant. We have learned from painful experience that those who are the first to cry “treason” are the last to support our freedoms. We are all Jacobins when we defy our government or our neighbors, but that defiance is what defines us as a free people.

https://jonathanturley.org/2018/02/...s-in-calling-each-other-traitors/#more-133404

 

[Luk]

I agree. 45 should resign to save America from itself. I'm sure if you had an original thought, you'd agree.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Ignoring the legal definition of treason and simply using the word to connote any and all measure of alleged disloyalty is as ignorant as slapping someone in the face and calling it murder.

It can generally be dismissed by the likes of the hyper-partisan among the rank and file, but elected officials ought to know better and have the decency to restrain from such obvious hyperbole.

Once upon a time, they actually did.

 

[BobBalouski]

As their statist King and Parliament continued to enact more and more taxation upon them to recoup royal $ spent underwriting protecting/defending them during the French and Indiana War, a bunch of British subjects in Britain's American colonies finally proclaimed NO!and refused to pay any of those taxes, and then went further by refusing to use any British-imported goods (another statist British government COMMANDMENT) at all. Of course, they were immediately charged as traitors by their own statist government, and their statist government sent even more troops to FORCE their statist will. Alas, the new Americans still said NO! and even started forming their own local government meetings, which their statist government used their FORCE to dissolve and proclaim that any future participants at such now-illegal meetings would be apprehended without warning and immediately shipped to London to be tried for treason.



If refusing to remit outright pizzo to, and not obeying the dictatorial commands of statist extortion...I mean, government...by FORCE is truly treasonous...

Call me a fucking American traitor every day of the friggin' week, tyvm.

 

[Hypoxia]

...they were immediately charged as traitors by their own statist government...

All governments are statist, by definition. A government without a state is most likely in exile. I think Idi Amin had one of those in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, senior Russian and US officials have declared that Russia is waging war on USA. See US Constitution Art.III Sec.3 for the implications.

 

[Liar]

Well, the difference seems to be that one side is accusing the other of not displaying the appropriate amount of deference to him personally, and calls it treason.

While the other side is accusing it's opponent of being compromised by, colluding with, and directly aiding and abetting a foreign adversary, and calls it treason.

Whether the accusations are true or false is another question. But one accusation is a helluvalot closer to the literal definition of treason.

 

[BobBalouski]

Well, the difference seems to be that one side is accusing the other of not displaying the appropriate amount of deference to him personally, and calls it treason.

While the other side is accusing it's opponent of being compromised by, colluding with, and directly aiding and abetting a foreign adversary, and calls it treason.

Whether the accusations are true or false is another question. But one accusation is a helluvalot closer to the literal definition of treason.

Not a surprise to read accusations are like horseshoes to a socialist piece of shit squirrel. Tell me, comrade: what's close got to do with any accusation if that accusation pertains to no legal truth at all?