The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[STTAB]

You disagree with the existence of the article?

Of course not, I"m not a liberal . I accept facts as facts. I disagree with you about Democrats in Congress being traitors, they are IMO.

[Kathianne]

Of course not, I"m not a liberal . I accept facts as facts. I disagree with you about Democrats in Congress being traitors, they are IMO.

I said, 'they hadn't been declared enemies of the state.' I never said they didn't harbor as much or more enmity as the opposition.

[STTAB]

I said, 'they hadn't been declared enemies of the state.' I never said they didn't harbor as much of more enmity as the opposition.

Okay, But I believe that the Democrats most certainly are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and that they are doing it on purpose. IE treason. I'd vote for the death penalty for quote a few of them, not all of them, some like Maxine Waters are just stupid, but people like Addam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler and a few others like that, they are traitors.

[jimnyc]

I think there are many, but still a small minority of those who hold conservative values on government and foreign affairs, but are not with those that have chosen a different way to voice their opinions. Maybe it's projection on my part, though I know quite a few that agree with me-so I'm not alone.

What the arguments are against French are really just a litany of why 'the Republicans' aren't going to 'hold solid,' for at least a period of time. Anyone who's studied politics for the past 45-50 years, including liberals, would have projected that the US would be much more liberal than it is. Why did the movement that was 'inevitable' in the 60s, 70s, suddenly braking in the late 70s/80s? Carter. Reagan. And the legislatures/courts of those years.

Pause was given and thought emerged. Conservatives found some areas they could tone down the more strident and the citizenry chose to walk back from the brink of what appeared to be inevitable socialist growth.

It'd had always been a pendulum, but the left gave up a lot of ground. During the 90's it seemed the left was making gains, by appealing more to the center, while the farther right was gaining sway within the Republican Party. The Democrats under Clinton appeared more moderate than many of the Conservatives and more willing to compromise.

Then 9/11, the whole country, almost, wanted to have a 'strong America' and social causes by the emerging far left, were being somewhat muted, though not on campuses as a nod to the 60s.

After a decade of 'war on terror,' and regular terror attacks in Europe, the left-far more angry and even younger than in the 90s, started to be heard. Populism was back, full strength on the left.

The Right reacted. Here we are.

David French owes no explanations. I read the following a few days ago, Erickson was anti-Trump, then he wasn't. He still will touch back on the populism now from the right:

https://theresurgent.com/2019/06/05/i-think-you-guys-did-something-bad-and-you-know-it/

Those who really have an interest in conservatism as a set of goals, rather than as just a weapon against the left, might want to read about someone who has given a lot to their country and to conservative causes.

Fwiw, the reason I posted that article, was solely because of those that literally hope for failure against Trump, even if that means going against things they may otherwise believe in. Or rooting for the left on things they far from agree with. And yes, there are quite a lot out there like that.

By no means to be anything about conservatives and normal lack of support for Trump for various things/reasons. One doesn't nearly need to be a fan of Trump in order to want to see success in many many areas, and of course to NOT see the left get disastrous things done that conservatives stand against.

There are people out there that want AMERICA as a whole to fail, so that Trump gets knocked and/or credit for said failure.

[Kathianne]

Okay, But I believe that the Democrats most certainly are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and that they are doing it on purpose. IE treason. I'd vote for the death penalty for quote a few of them, not all of them, some like Maxine Waters are just stupid, but people like Addam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler and a few others like that, they are traitors.

So you DON'T believe in Art.3, Sec 3 of the Constitution. You DO believe in all the rest, right? Just not those parts you have a differing opinion on. Of course, we all have a right to our opinions.

[Kathianne]

Fwiw, the reason I posted that article, was solely because of those that literally hope for failure against Trump, even if that means going against things they may otherwise believe in. Or rooting for the left on things they far from agree with. And yes, there are quite a lot out there like that.

By no means to be anything about conservatives and normal lack of support for Trump for various things/reasons. One doesn't nearly need to be a fan of Trump in order to want to see success in many many areas, and of course to NOT see the left get disastrous things done that conservatives stand against.

There are people out there that want AMERICA as a whole to fail, so that Trump gets knocked and/or credit for said failure.

I'm sure there are folks that feel the way you describe, I just don't know any. I'm not wanting him to fail, anymore than I wanted Obama to fail. Obama, imo did fail, Trump isn't failing the country. I might argue that the country is failing the country, but that isn't on Trump.

As I said, I don't know anyone, in real life or online who says they are 'conservative' and are hoping for Trump's failure regarding the country. Failure in 2020? Oh yea, there are those. Just like with the last election, there are some votes he just will not get.

Even George Will, the most 'never Trump' writer I know, isn't as you describe. David French? LOL! Not a chance.

[jimnyc]

MANY on the right, both online/supporters of the right & politicians alike, were all for much tougher border security, major funding, more agents, enhanced fencing and all kinds of enhanced electronics and others to help secure our border. Now, in addition to the obstruction from the left - there are MANY out there that suddenly don't support efforts at the border - little to no difference to the left who supported and went live with America to state we needed all kinds of things to fix the issue. And I have no doubt it's because of Trump & because it was a major promise of his. That's one example, and it's a huge one IMO.

[Kathianne]

MANY on the right, both online/supporters of the right & politicians alike, were all for much tougher border security, major funding, more agents, enhanced fencing and all kinds of enhanced electronics and others to help secure our border. Now, in addition to the obstruction from the left - there are MANY out there that suddenly don't support efforts at the border - little to no difference to the left who supported and went live with America to state we needed all kinds of things to fix the issue. And I have no doubt it's because of Trump & because it was a major promise of his. That's one example, and it's a huge one IMO.


Not agreeing with taking money from the military to fulfill his objective or agreeing with his wall or the cost is not saying that they are against border security. I will say though, the President has been the most effective President on spinning certain issues to the point of no opposition is acceptable.

Again, there is nothing in this discussion but my observations and my own opinions. I think that Trump is masterful in many areas, I have no reason to doubt he will be serve a second term.

Our disagreement on whether or not that is in the long run good or bad for the country is unknowable for a long time. Doesn't change either of our positions, nor my favorable regards for you.

[STTAB]

So you DON'T believe in Art.3, Sec 3 of the Constitution. You DO believe in all the rest, right? Just not those parts you have a differing opinion on. Of course, we all have a right to our opinions.

What? That isn't what I said at all . Rather, I said I believe that what Democrats are doing now meets the threshold of treason in accordance with the COTUS.

[STTAB]

I'm sure there are folks that feel the way you describe, I just don't know any. I'm not wanting him to fail, anymore than I wanted Obama to fail. Obama, imo did fail, Trump isn't failing the country. I might argue that the country is failing the country, but that isn't on Trump.

As I said, I don't know anyone, in real life or online who says they are 'conservative' and are hoping for Trump's failure regarding the country. Failure in 2020? Oh yea, there are those. Just like with the last election, there are some votes he just will not get.

Even George Will, the most 'never Trump' writer I know, isn't as you describe. David French? LOL! Not a chance.

You don't believe, for example, that there are Republicans who wanted Trump's threat of tarrifs on Mexico to fail? There were Republican members of Congress openly saying it Kath. Because they WANT open borders.

[Kathianne]

What? That isn't what I said at all . Rather, I said I believe that what Democrats are doing now meets the threshold of treason in accordance with the COTUS.

Ok. :rolleyes: One of these things is not like the other...

[STTAB]

Ok. :rolleyes: One of these things is not like the other...

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.



Perhaps you missed the word OR in that passage?
Democrats are in fact colluding with our enemies. Giving the aid and comfort.

War is not a preclude to treason.

[Kathianne]

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.



Perhaps you missed the word OR in that passage?
Democrats are in fact colluding with our enemies. Giving the aid and comfort.

War is not a preclude to treason.
Seriously, you think there aren’t liberals that wouldn’t say that that sort of talk in and of itself an act of sedition at best, treason at worse?

I seriously misjudged your logic regarding the state of the nation and the citizenry.

As as always you have a right to your thinking, no matter how misguided I may think it. That’s my right.

[Kathianne]

You don't believe, for example, that there are Republicans who wanted Trump's threat of tarrifs on Mexico to fail? There were Republican members of Congress openly saying it Kath. Because they WANT open borders.

and you do believe that disagreeing with the policies put forward by a president, are cause for charges of treason? Belonging to an opposition party or even the same party makes one an enemy of the state? Great country some are now wishing for.

[Gunny]

Do you really think I miss patterns? I always understood what you were saying. It's fine not to have a 'core.' I guess. I do though. I know what I can go along with and what I can't. I have things I can compromise with and those that I can't. Some issues are too important for messing with, most are not.

I'm not all that idealistic, though on certain things, guilty. I always am stuck with myself.Okay. What I am saying, and where you and I disagree insofar as the voting goes is in "who" is "messing with" "what". I don't think I have ever insulted you for your POV, just disagreed with it and tried my best to get you to see a different POV.

You have nothing left to "mess with" if the left destroys/steals it all. Then, the Constitution/law you believe in is gone. Push comes to shove, in the end, I AM willing to break it to save it; especially, when the "enemy" is trampling all over it, abusing/misusing it to destroy it. So my way (like anyone cares :laugh:), once you "save" it, you can return it to its place. The other way, it's gone, end of story.

We are already in a "war". We're losing by being wordsmithed right out of business by the left. They are blatantly obvious in what they are doing, and just hide behind their warped misinterpretations of the law. Except they aren't even bothering to hide their dishonesty anymore. Nothing is going to stop them but complete victory on their part, and they'll just find something else to lie and steal about in that event, or stopping them by force.

Just don't think that because some are warmongering that everyone willing to fight for their ideals is a warmonger. I'd just as soon not. You cannot debate with a rattlesnake. No matter what you say, it is going to strike you. That's just its nature.

[Kathianne]

Okay. What I am saying, and where you and I disagree insofar as the voting goes is in "who" is "messing with" "what". I don't think I have ever insulted you for your POV, just disagreed with it and tried my best to get you to see a different POV.

You have nothing left to "mess with" if the left destroys/steals it all. Then, the Constitution/law you believe in is gone. Push comes to shove, in the end, I AM willing to break it to save it; especially, when the "enemy" is trampling all over it, abusing/misusing it to destroy it. So my way (like anyone cares :laugh:), once you "save" it, you can return it to its place. The other way, it's gone, end of story.

We are already in a "war". We're losing by being wordsmithed right out of business by the left. They are blatantly obvious in what they are doing, and just hide behind their warped misinterpretations of the law. Except they aren't even bothering to hide their dishonesty anymore. Nothing is going to stop them but complete victory on their part, and they'll just find something else to lie and steal about in that event, or stopping them by force.

Just don't think that because some are warmongering that everyone willing to fight for their ideals is a warmonger. I'd just as soon not. You cannot debate with a rattlesnake. No matter what you say, it is going to strike you. That's just its nature.

You and I, we get each other, we just disagree. I don't see all the 'liberal victories' that you all seem to. In fact, if not for the right buying into their own version of populism, one could well argue that the right had been on a steady stream of winning the 'hearts and minds' from the middle of the electorate, outwards. Then they stopped. They too began the vitriol expressions towards those that disagree, tit for tat. If joining in the hate fest was working, perhaps it could be justified, but seems instead to just be making the country more divided and the words have begun to turn to actions.

[jimnyc]

and you do believe that disagreeing with the policies put forward by a president, are cause for charges of treason? Belonging to an opposition party or even the same party makes one an enemy of the state? Great country some are now wishing for.

I DO think that it's more than disagreeing, and assistance to those wishing to invade our country. I don't think it rises to the level of treason, but they are doing more than simple opposing. My wishing is that they stop the obstruction or that a way is found to get around their obstruction in issues as such that protect our country. That's the funding that Trump did with the Pentagon and I agree with that move 100%. And if a wall or enhanced fencing and the extra help I write about comes from that, more the better.

[Gunny]

You and I, we get each other, we just disagree. I don't see all the 'liberal victories' that you all seem to. In fact, if not for the right buying into their own version of populism, one could well argue that the right had been on a steady stream of winning the 'hearts and minds' from the middle of the electorate, outwards. Then they stopped. They too began the vitriol expressions towards those that disagree, tit for tat. If joining in the hate fest was working, perhaps it could be justified, but seems instead to just be making the country more divided and the words have begun to turn to actions.The left is "winning" because the media tells everyone it is winning. People on the right throw up their hands, stay home and don't bother. Can everyone with a functional mind see right through the left and the media? One would hope so. Obviously though, there's about half the population that cannot.

The right/GOP has been screwing itself, IMO. since the "Contract with America" in 94 by making promises and not delivering. Yet the same neocons hold office, get put into power, and then want to play nice with snakes.

You don't see the Dems doing that. Does that make us "better"? Looks good on a tombstone, because it has gotten the right just flat run down by a steamroller. We play nice and they shove it down our throats first chance they get in return. Definitely a recurring pattern.

You ask if the Dems should be outlawed and I am going to revert to type and give you the Marine, strategic and tactical response: Yes. Nothing short is going to stop them. Delaying the inevitable just strengthens the left and weakens the right.

[Kathianne]

The left is "winning" because the media tells everyone it is winning. People on the right throw up their hands, stay home and don't bother. Can everyone with a functional mind see right through the left and the media? One would hope so. Obviously though, there's about half the population that cannot.

The right/GOP has been screwing itself, IMO. since the "Contract with America" in 94 by making promises and not delivering. Yet the same neocons hold office, get put into power, and then want to play nice with snakes.

You don't see the Dems doing that. Does that make us "better"? Looks good on a tombstone, because it has gotten the right just flat run down by a steamroller. We play nice and they shove it down our throats first chance they get in return. Definitely a recurring pattern.

You ask if the Dems should be outlawed and I am going to revert to type and give you the Marine, strategic and tactical response: Yes. Nothing short is going to stop them. Delaying the inevitable just strengthens the left and weakens the right.


And again, you have the right to your opinion. If those things come to pass, which they may do, than the who 'experiment' is over and done.

BTW, attempts to say I think both sides are at the same point is ridiculous. The only reason I have to say that so often is that seems to be a favorite logical fallacy in response to any disagreements with the majority here.

Once again, while my chosen positions align more with one side, that side no longer has the goals, methods, nor values in many ways that I can go along with. The other side? Offers nothing that aligns with my positions.

[STTAB]

Seriously, you think there aren’t liberals that wouldn’t say that that sort of talk in and of itself an act of sedition at best, treason at worse?

I seriously misjudged your logic regarding the state of the nation and the citizenry.

As as always you have a right to your thinking, no matter how misguided I may think it. That’s my right.

I don't believe you've misjudged my logic. I believe you've misunderstood my words. No, I do not believe word alone can be treasonous. That's why I differentiated, dopes like Maxine Waters and her "inpeach 45" since literally the day he was elected, they are just dopes. Not traitors.

But people like Adam Schiff who have access to classified material and are lying about it to other members of Congress and to the American people in a blatant attempt to dislodge a duly elected President, who pretty openly misused our justice system and our intelligence community to portray the same President as a traitor to this country, yeah that's treasonous in my book.

And I don't give one damn that it's liberals and or that it's Trump. If conservatives had done the same to Obama I'd be screaming about treason at the top of my lungs.

Their actions, not their words, are treasonous they embolden our enemies. We know this is true just by watching our enemies. They love what's going on.

[Kathianne]

I don't believe you've misjudged my logic. I believe you've misunderstood my words. No, I do not believe word alone can be treasonous. That's why I differentiated, dopes like Maxine Waters and her "inpeach 45" since literally the day he was elected, they are just dopes. Not traitors.

But people like Adam Schiff who have access to classified material and are lying about it to other members of Congress and to the American people in a blatant attempt to dislodge a duly elected President, who pretty openly misused our justice system and our intelligence community to portray the same President as a traitor to this country, yeah that's treasonous in my book.

And I don't give one damn that it's liberals and or that it's Trump. If conservatives had done the same to Obama I'd be screaming about treason at the top of my lungs.

Their actions, not their words, are treasonous they embolden our enemies. We know this is true just by watching our enemies. They love what's going on.

Lying to Congress, under oath is a crime. Just lying seems to be expected behavior from elected officials. Assuming he misused the justice system, intelligence community, what crimes would those be? Still seems this line of reasoning may be worthy of accusation of crime, but not treason. Misuse of office perhaps? In this case it seems to me that the term 'treason' holds about as much water as using it against Obama for 'being an Islamic, non-birth American,' Saw a lot of that back when and from a few even in present time.

[Gunny]

And again, you have the right to your opinion. If those things come to pass, which they may do, than the who 'experiment' is over and done.

BTW, attempts to say I think both sides are at the same point is ridiculous. The only reason I have to say that so often is that seems to be a favorite logical fallacy in response to any disagreements with the majority here.

Once again, while my chosen positions align more with one side, that side no longer has the goals, methods, nor values in many ways that I can go along with. The other side? Offers nothing that aligns with my positions.If this is about being "for" something, I don't think I'm "for" any political party, the bureaucracy or the Government that created them. I expect none of the above to do anything for me except by coincidence.

Anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking we don't already live in a socialist Hell needs to reexamine the cookie cutter car they drive to their cookie cutter job and back to their cookie cutter home with groceries from the cookie cutter store bought from their cookie cutter paycheck. Or their children rolling off to a cookie cutter school to learn the same nothing (as far as I can see) except adherence to the cookie cutter society and its cookie cutter rules. Got to educate those future taxpayers on how to pay their taxes.

We're all "free"? When and where is this? I tried to think of a single thing I do that isn't somehow controlled by someone else's rules. Suicide is all I can come up with. And they so can't stand not being control even THAT is outlawed. Like that particular law means anything :laugh:

Perhaps you can point out where I am wrong about some of these "freedoms" and/or "Rights". I can't even go to the bathroom without a government approved toilet in my cookie cutter house.

So, I'm really having a hard time getting up for the arguments anymore. I'm just against anything making it worse.

[Kathianne]

If this is about being "for" something, I don't think I'm "for" any political party, the bureaucracy or the Government that created them. I expect none of the above to do anything for me except by coincidence.

Anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking we don't already live in a socialist Hell needs to reexamine the cookie cutter car they drive to their cookie cutter job and back to their cookie cutter home with groceries from the cookie cutter store bought from their cookie cutter paycheck. Or their children rolling off to a cookie cutter school to learn the same nothing (as far as I can see) except adherence to the cookie cutter society and its cookie cutter rules. Got to educate those future taxpayers on how to pay their taxes.

We're all "free"? When and where is this? I tried to think of a single thing I do that isn't somehow controlled by someone else's rules. Suicide is all I can come up with. And they so can't stand not being control even THAT is outlawed. Like that particular law means anything :laugh:

Perhaps you can point out where I am wrong about some of these "freedoms" and/or "Rights". I can't even go to the bathroom without a government approved toilet in my cookie cutter house.

So, I'm really having a hard time getting up for the arguments anymore. I'm just against anything making it worse.

Well that was certainly uplifting. :laugh2: You make me seem like Susie Sunshine, thanks for that! :beer:

[STTAB]

Lying to Congress, under oath is a crime. Just lying seems to be expected behavior from elected officials. Assuming he misused the justice system, intelligence community, what crimes would those be? Still seems this line of reasoning may be worthy of accusation of crime, but not treason. Misuse of office perhaps? In this case it seems to me that the term 'treason' holds about as much water as using it against Obama for 'being an Islamic, non-birth American,' Saw a lot of that back when and from a few even in present time.

This is why I said I realize it's a fine line one must determine when something actually gives aid and comfort to an enemy. You seem to believe it must be material aid and or comfort. I think it can just be the comfort of knowing some within the government are fighting the government itself as much as you are. Just a difference of opinion.

As for Congress lying to us. LOL I actually asked that same question. If Democrats believe Trump is a liar and that it is so dangerous, why don't they pass a law making it illegal for elected officials to lie to the American people. I think we all know the answer to that.

[Kathianne]

This is why I said I realize it's a fine line one must determine when something actually gives aid and comfort to an enemy. You seem to believe it must be material aid and or comfort. I think it can just be the comfort of knowing some within the government are fighting the government itself as much as you are. Just a difference of opinion.

As for Congress lying to us. LOL I actually asked that same question. If Democrats believe Trump is a liar and that it is so dangerous, why don't they pass a law making it illegal for elected officials to lie to the American people. I think we all know the answer to that.


Here's my take, at least in the US we have a legacy of not calling something 'treason' when it can be something else. There were good reasons that the framers chose to define treason and make it very hard to prosecute. Seems to me that like 'impeachment' both sides now want to make these common charges/remedies. Like I've been saying, we're coming undone.

[STTAB]

Here's my take, at least in the US we have a legacy of not calling something 'treason' when it can be something else. There were good reasons that the framers chose to define treason and make it very hard to prosecute. Seems to me that like 'impeachment' both sides now want to make these common charges/remedies. Like I've been saying, we're coming undone.

I'm the one who brought that up in this thread LOL. I just think the Dems in Congress have crossed the line

And I believe they are doing more that we don't even know about. Yes at this point I think the Dems would "collude" with Iran if they thought they could force Trump into doing something stupid that might cost him reelection. They are that reckless and that power hungry.

[Kathianne]

I'm the one who brought that up in this thread LOL. I just think the Dems in Congress have crossed the line

And I believe they are doing more that we don't even know about. Yes at this point I think the Dems would "collude" with Iran if they thought they could force Trump into doing something stupid that might cost him reelection. They are that reckless and that power hungry.

Good for you, then why would you do what you're accusing others of? Lots of people cross lines, even politicians. May be a crime, but not treason. EVEN IF they are for open borders and England like gun control/banishment laws. Doesn't mean you go along with them; doesn't mean not to keep up the arguments and vote against them; just means, Don't be using hyperbole, it only distracts from the argument you are making.

[STTAB]

Good for you, then why would you do what you're accusing others of? Lots of people cross lines, even politicians. May be a crime, but not treason. EVEN IF they are for open borders and England like gun control/banishment laws. Doesn't mean you go along with them; doesn't mean not to keep up the arguments and vote against them; just means, Don't be using hyperbole, it only distracts from the argument you are making.

I'm not making that argument. I am simply following the law. What some Democrats in Congress are doing does give aid and comfort to enemies of our country. That is the VERY definition of treason in our COTUS.

If you rob a bank that isn't treason, but if you rob a bank and give the money to terrorists, that IS treason IMO.

[Kathianne]

I'm not making that argument. I am simply following the law. What some Democrats in Congress are doing does give aid and comfort to enemies of our country. That is the VERY definition of treason in our COTUS.

If you rob a bank that isn't treason, but if you rob a bank and give the money to terrorists, that IS treason IMO.

Just like those you criticize, you are using your opinion of something as justification, that certainly falls under the first amendment.

[STTAB]

Just like those you criticize, you are using your opinion of something as justification, that certainly falls under the first amendment.

Giving aid and comfort to an enemy of this country certainly does NOT fall within the First Amendment Kath. In fact it is expressly called TREASON in Article 3 of the COTUS.

[Kathianne]

Giving aid and comfort to an enemy of this country certainly does NOT fall within the First Amendment Kath. In fact it is expressly called TREASON in Article 3 of the COTUS.


Calling something 'aid and comfort' does not make it so, it's you defining something based upon your opinion.

[Gunny]

Calling something 'aid and comfort' does not make it so, it's you defining something based upon your opinion.Therein lies THE problem.

The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.

It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already here :) It goes back to the heart of my argument from the beginning. We're being wordsmithed out of a country. These boneheads are using the Constitution, and what it does and does not say, to dismantle the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.

I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.

If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.

[Kathianne]

Therein lies THE problem.

The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.

It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already here :) It goes back to the heart of my argument from the beginning. We're being wordsmithed out of a country. These boneheads are using the Constitution, and what it does and does not say, to dismantle the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.

I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.

If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.


We disagree. Again, it will be awhile before there's any real evidence of where we're going. If I'm correct, there will be a different system in force-however that comes about. If you are correct, there will be some sort of final battle, violent or not, and there will a restoration or something else. (Not sure how there would be a restoration though, since neither side seems to want the current system).

[Kathianne]

Therein lies THE problem.

The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.

It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already here :) It goes back to the heart of my argument from the beginning. We're being wordsmithed out of a country. These boneheads are using the Constitution, and what it does and does not say, to dismantle the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.

I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.

If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.

I am confused though, how one says to go ahead and break the laws, but say the Constitution matters to them. I guess you're saying just during these 'extreme' times, ones that have never faced this country before?

[Gunny]

I am confused though, how one says to go ahead and break the laws, but say the Constitution matters to them. I guess you're saying just during these 'extreme' times, ones that have never faced this country before?That's the rub with you and me and this topic.

It was okay for Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus and he's considered a National hero. That was in direct violation of the Constitution. And that was just one of the Constitutional Rights he trampled.

FDR basically suspended everyone's Rights "for the duration". Especially the First Amendment Right to free speech. Free speech included only "I love 'Merica".

The country has, in fact, faced times just as extreme before. I consider the very existence of the Constitution being at stake quite extreme and that is where we are. If "suspending habeus corpus" is justified to preserve the Union, which has been set as a precedent in this country, so be it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

In this case it seems to me that the term 'treason' holds about as much water as using it against Obama for 'being an Islamic, non-birth American,' Saw a lot of that back when and from a few even in present time.
Well... facts are facts, and I just go by the facts... and with your comparison, you've pretty much unwittingly given full support that STAABS claim of treason is very valid...

https://i.ibb.co/Tw0fP4q/immigrants-obama-support.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/FHTJ3Hf/Capture-0.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/JqnLnKL/Capture-2.jpg

[Kathianne]

Well... facts are facts, and I just go by the facts... and with your comparison, you've pretty much unwittingly given full support that STAABS claim of treason is very valid...



Thank you for that, I agree that STABB would agree with what you've posted. Chosen 'facts.'

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Thank you for that, I agree that STABB would agree with what you've posted. Chosen 'facts.'
Was there anything that wasn't true in what I posted?

I just kinda felt "called out," so wanted to defend myself.

[Kathianne]

Was there anything that wasn't true in what I posted?

I just kinda felt "called out," so wanted to defend myself.


I'll let STABB dig those 'facts' for you. BTW, you have lots and lots of company, your not unique.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'll let STABB dig those 'facts' for you. BTW, you have lots and lots of company, your not unique.
"You're," not your... OOOOOOOO k... now that I picked at ya... :laugh: (Sorry, just couldn't pass that one up.)

I know I'm not alone. I bet a good half the country or better doesn't believe obama was born in Hawaii, and do think he's a muslim. Pretty much just stating the obvious there.

[Kathianne]

"You're," not your... OOOOOOOO k... now that I picked at ya... :laugh: (Sorry, just couldn't pass that one up.)

I know I'm not alone. I bet a good half the country or better doesn't believe obama was born in Hawaii, and do think he's a muslim. Pretty much just stating the obvious there.

Yep, missed that comma. :laugh2:apostrophe, dammit, apostrophe!

I think your company count may be a tad high, but there are plenty of you!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

20 pages... not one "fight." Gotta be some kinda record... :thumb:

[STTAB]

Calling something 'aid and comfort' does not make it so, it's you defining something based upon your opinion.

And that's what juries are for. Simple as that.

[Kathianne]

And that's what juries are for. Simple as that.
Not really, that’s what prosecutors and grand juries are for.

[STTAB]

Not really, that’s what prosecutors and grand juries are for.

That's true, but if you can't even agree that there is probable cause to suspect treason well then we can just agree that you are wrong and move on . Oh wait, the nice thing to say would have been "agree to disagree" I always get that wrong.

[Kathianne]

That's true, but if you can't even agree that there is probable cause to suspect treason well then we can just agree that you are wrong and move on . Oh wait, the nice thing to say would have been "agree to disagree" I always get that wrong.

We agree that the 'decider' is that whom can bring charges. ;) On the issue of 'treason' we agree to disagree. I do hope that was nice. :laugh2:

[STTAB]

We agree that the 'decider' is that whom can bring charges. ;) On the issue of 'treason' we agree to disagree. I do hope that was nice. :laugh2:

We do agree that you have the right to be wrong, so there' that.

I'm just curious though what to you constitutes giving aid and comfort to an enemy?

[Kathianne]

We do agree that you have the right to be wrong, so there' that.

I'm just curious though what to you constitutes giving aid and comfort to an enemy?

I take it to primarily be about someone like Benedict Arnold. Like impeachment, it's not to be abused as has become all too common. There are very good reasons that even the military does not bring that charge, even in questionable cases. When in doubt, don't charge treason. When actually convinced it's happened, capital offense.

[STTAB]

I take it to primarily be about someone like Benedict Arnold. Like impeachment, it's not to be abused as has become all too common. There are very good reasons that even the military does not bring that charge, even in questionable cases. When in doubt, don't charge treason. When actually convinced it's happened, capital offense.

But that didn't answer my question. I asked what YOU would consider as treason? If a President were, for example , to send millions of dollars in cash to a country that is labeled by our own government as a state sponsor of terror, would that be treason?

[Kathianne]

But that didn't answer my question. I asked what YOU would consider as treason? If a President were, for example , to send millions of dollars in cash to a country that is labeled by our own government as a state sponsor of terror, would that be treason?
I am happy with my answer. Not playing “What if,” on treason, the Constitutional definition and precedents work well for me.

[STTAB]

I am happy with my answer. Not playing “What if,” on treason, the Constitutional definition and precedents work well for me.

Your answer makes no sense, other than you're trying to avoid answering . I mean "the COTUS says, but I'm not about to clarify what I think that means?" Really? Come on I know you can do better.

[Kathianne]

Your answer makes no sense, other than you're trying to avoid answering . I mean "the COTUS says, but I'm not about to clarify what I think that means?" Really? Come on I know you can do better.

LOL! I am surprised that you haven't realized you are not going to goad me in arguing about something I've already said we disagree with. Maybe it would be more advantageous to get others that agree with you to speak up. I do not care if no one agrees with me and I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to do that.

[STTAB]

LOL! I am surprised that you haven't realized you are not going to goad me in arguing about something I've already said we disagree with. Maybe it would be more advantageous to get others that agree with you to speak up. I do not care if no one agrees with me and I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to do that.

Oh, but I do realize. You have came to the conclusion that I am correct and are attempting to bow out of the conversation gracefully. I accept your surrender and the matter is closed. :clap:

[jimnyc]

Treason is sure a tough pickle, between full reality & differing beliefs around the country.

Here's what I don't get though. The Democrats ran around with treason accusations about Trump, even after the investigation was complete, and many still do. And of course the others then push for obstruction.

If someone gives an opinion of treason about several things Obama, many around the country scoff at it. And with the endless crap going on during his terms, not even small investigations really took place about the tons of folks involved in all kinds of wrongdoings. Only the "far far left" called for the investigations and continued with the Obama not born here and Kenya stuff, and treason about a number of things. Either it was believed, or those who believed it again scoffed at.

But 2 years of Trump in office and there are tons and tons of calls of treason, and the left isn't apologetic about it and many of them are making this their sole jobs. And then more than a ton on the right don't speak up to defend. I'm not sure if those folks on the right agree with the treason or if they just hate Trump. Comparing these 2 men - the lack of any treason type activities is non-existent with Trump. Where the left, there is already proof of wrongdoing against many, and things are silent and they get a pass from so many.

[Kathianne]

Oh, but I do realize. You have came to the conclusion that I am correct and are attempting to bow out of the conversation gracefully. I accept your surrender and the matter is closed. :clap:
:laugh2:

[STTAB]

Treason is sure a tough pickle, between full reality & differing beliefs around the country.

Here's what I don't get though. The Democrats ran around with treason accusations about Trump, even after the investigation was complete, and many still do. And of course the others then push for obstruction.

If someone gives an opinion of treason about several things Obama, many around the country scoff at it. And with the endless crap going on during his terms, not even small investigations really took place about the tons of folks involved in all kinds of wrongdoings. Only the "far far left" called for the investigations and continued with the Obama not born here and Kenya stuff, and treason about a number of things. Either it was believed, or those who believed it again scoffed at.

But 2 years of Trump in office and there are tons and tons of calls of treason, and the left isn't apologetic about it and many of them are making this their sole jobs. And then more than a ton on the right don't speak up to defend. I'm not sure if those folks on the right agree with the treason or if they just hate Trump. Comparing these 2 men - the lack of any treason type activities is non-existent with Trump. Where the left, there is already proof of wrongdoing against many, and things are silent and they get a pass from so many.

Of course many on the right hate Trump as much as the left do. But you notice it' mostly politicians on the right that hate him, the number of just regular conservative Americans who are like "fuck Trump" is pretty damn small.

The reason the politicians hate him is clear. He's a guy who is a direct threat to their collective desire to not actually do a god damned thing while continuing to enrich themselves at the public trough. Think about it, Paul Ryan that fuckhead may be the worst Speaker of the House in history. Mitch McConell? He's a pile of shit. They're no better than their Democratic counterparts. If they actually solve problem what are they going to rile up the voter base about in the next election?

90% of the bullshit those idiots are fighting over on a daily basis could be fixed inside of a month if Congress actually wanted to fix them. But they don't, and Trump does and that pisses them off. Why more liberal voters don't see this fundamental truth is beyond me.

[Abbey Marie]

Not really, that’s what prosecutors and grand juries are for.

You are both partially correct. The hurdle of the grand jury must be overcome, but then it may likely be a jury making the ultimate decision. Unless of course it is a non-jury trial. I don’t know how treason trials operate.

[STTAB]

You are both partially correct. The hurdle of the grand jury must be overcome, but then it may likely be a jury making the ultimate decision. Unless of course it is a non-jury trial. I don’t know how treason trials operate.

In a federal criminal case prosecutors have the right to accept or reject a trial by jury waiver, making it HIGHLY unlikely that anyone accused of treason would ever be judged without a jury.

Plus of course only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial anyway. Meaning the most likely outcome is a plea agreement, even if the charge is treason.

[Kathianne]

You are both partially correct. The hurdle of the grand jury must be overcome, but then it may likely be a jury making the ultimate decision. Unless of course it is a non-jury trial. I don’t know how treason trials operate.
If you don't get past first the DA, then the Grand Jury, one doesn't have to worry about the jury.

And this side discussion began with STABB saying it would be the jury that 'defined' not 'decided' treason. I was answering that those deciding whether or not there was reason to believe treason may have occurred would be decided by charges being brought-thus DA, then Grand Jury.

[STTAB]

If you don't get past first the DA, then the Grand Jury, one doesn't have to worry about the jury.

And this side discussion began with STABB saying it would be the jury that 'defined' not 'decided' treason. I was answering that those deciding whether or not there was reason to believe treason may have occurred would be decided by charges being brought-thus DA, then Grand Jury.

Yes I said a jury should decide because I believe we give DA's TOO much discretion. I mean look now in Dallas for example where the DA has announced that Dallas will no longer be prosecuting THEFT cases.

[Kathianne]

Yes I said a jury should decide because I believe we give DA's TOO much discretion. I mean look now in Dallas for example where the DA has announced that Dallas will no longer be prosecuting THEFT cases.

Wouldn't you love it if you ran the country-just you, no legislature and NO opposition. Perfect world. :laugh2:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't think any president in history has had to weather more CRAP from the opposing party than Trump, and the democrats absolutely DO NOT CARE what the public thinks. Pass out Nadler, pencil neck ScHITt, the muslim twins, AOC Einstein, miss fucked her way to the top Harris, Swallowell, Buttiplug, Gillybillybrand, Spartacus, Milo Beto... and the list goes on. Just a complete gaggle of ASS CLOWNS. They keep REPEATING... "NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE"... uuuuummm... OK... FOR WHAT? I NEVER hear them SAY.

The left is UNHINGED, and I have NEVER seen anything like this display of if ANYTHING, it's ABUSE OF POWER, it's PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT. Jim has posted REAMS and REAMS of examples. How ANYONE can ignore all of it is beyond me. I just hope, and if I miss my guess it will be, a BLOOD BATH against the democrats in 2020. They're going to keep up their SHIT and it WILL... COST THEM. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of TRASH in my opinion.

Name ONE THING the DEMOCRATS have said in any campaign stop so far that's NOT UNAMERICAN. They're all running on SOCIALISM, OPEN BORDERS, the GREEN JOKE and WE HATE TRUMP and we're going to IMPEACH HIM. Oh there's a freakin' WINNER RIGHT THERE... pfft. You have to be RETARDED to agree with any of their BUNK.

[/:rant-over]