General Discussion

hack89

(39,181 posts)

68. So what defines treason? Besides your OP that is.

Reply to True Blue Door (Reply #67)

Wed Oct 22, 2014, 01:38 PM

Oct 2014

what is the bottom line, definitive, absolutely no arguing against, definition of treason?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Vote Suppression is Treason. [View all] True Blue Door Oct 2014 OP

I have long made the argument TlalocW Oct 2014 #1

Ordinary Republicans are full of thought-terminating cliches. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #2

And don't forget - the same folks who blather on about how wonderful our troops are calimary Oct 2014 #102

It is treasonous RobertEarl Oct 2014 #3

it is NOT - treason is defined in the constitution as : belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #4

How does that not apply to overthrowing American democracy? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #12

overthrowing American democracy that is your analysis of it, your definition, how u see it belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #14

"Their job as an opposition party"??? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #21

that's their definition - what they are doing is called "gaming the system" and that's not treason belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #23

I'm sure their attorneys would make such an argument. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #27

im not going to play your semantic gymnastic game. you call it what ever you want belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #28

I want to call it what it is: Treason. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #36

you rock on with that - people are free to be as wrong as they want - just like the belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #40

People are free to be as pusillanimous and weak in the face of Republican treason True Blue Door Oct 2014 #48

blah blah blah go get a lawyer and sue them for treason belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #49

You really have nothing of value to add, do you? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #54

i do - go get a lawyer and sue them for treason - belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #57

here you go captain kirk says no blah blah blah belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #56

Ugh... bobclark86 Oct 2014 #51

and he keeps going at it like if he says it enough it'll come true belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #59

Dumbest...comment...ever. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #60

It's called hyperbole, and it has no place in rational discussion n/t bobclark86 Oct 2014 #61

No, it is not hyperbole - it's projection or doublethink. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #63

And how do you know *you* aren't projecting? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #74

Because I think and reflect. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #89

There is an objective standard and that standard categorically says you're wrong. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #93

No it doesn't. Again, I ask - what is the purpose of war? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #96

First, war is a contest of arms. To kill and destroy until the opponent cannot or will not Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #105

No, dammit. War on the United States is an attempt to take away the right of the people True Blue Door Oct 2014 #108

And what do you hope to see? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #109

Near as I can see, the DOJ doesn't prosecute Republicans for torture or murder either. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #111

"The Germans are marching on Warsaw! It's naked war of aggression!" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #114

First you have to acknowledge the situation before you can correct it. Obviously. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #115

And what would the corrective action entail? nt Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #116

We don't have to map out a Grand Strategy, but we know where to start: True Blue Door Oct 2014 #119

Do you think President Obama has the ability to see this objective reality? ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #90

Because prosecuting even lesser crimes by Republicans is politically impossible. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #97

It's politically impossible because ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #98

First of all, Presidents don't prosecute people. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #99

Yes, but he's against it. ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #100

You mean he doesn't accept the political price of something he couldn't do anyway? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #112

He also labels the "traitors" as "patriots." ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #120

Given that half his own Party is dominated by collaborationists and Stockholm Syndrome cases True Blue Door Oct 2014 #122

The point I am making is this isn't treason. ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #123

The French after WW2 disagreed. The Vichy government enacted plenty of legislation. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #124

TRAITOR: A person who betrays a friend, country, principle. Hortensis Oct 2014 #18

how does that fit into the definition of treason belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #22

How does it not? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #31

you tell me- you made the accusation so back it up belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #35

I'd like to know on what grounds you're disputing it so I can address them. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #42

on the grounds that what you describe doesnt fit the definition of treason as it is in the belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #44

Voter suppression is the very definition of treason. I don't give one shit how YOU define it. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #77

Some people would say ignoring the Constitution is treason onenote Oct 2014 #79

what youre saying is"I don't give one shit how THE CONSTITUTION defines it." it's not MY definition belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #82

Elements of a political party are using voter suppression to gain control of the nation. Enthusiast Oct 2014 #87

you call it what ever you want belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #88

+1 Enthusiast Oct 2014 #80

No it is not - go read the Constitution. nt hack89 Oct 2014 #5

I have read the Constitution. I don't think you've thought that comment through. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #13

read it again belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #16

I've read it again. It still fits. Now explain what the hell you're talking about. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #32

well youre free to be wrong. you have lots of company there belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #46

Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution hack89 Oct 2014 #19

And I ask again: How does that definition not cover overthrowing American democracy? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #24

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them" hack89 Oct 2014 #29

And what is the purpose of war? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #34

You do realize there is several centuries of case law defining treason? hack89 Oct 2014 #39

Just as we have case law defining corporations as people, money as speech, True Blue Door Oct 2014 #45

Good luck with that. nt hack89 Oct 2014 #47

Good luck continuing to treat brazenly treasonous crimes as frat pranks. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #52

They are certainly crimes. Just not treason. nt hack89 Oct 2014 #55

I'm not suggesting it be prosecuted as treason. I'm just saying what it is. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #64

In this case the law defines the fact. hack89 Oct 2014 #65

The Constitution describes government powers and limitations. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #67

So what defines treason? Besides your OP that is. hack89 Oct 2014 #68

crickets belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #85

You hear a lot of crickets under bridges, don't you? True Blue Door Oct 2014 #92

wow that's hillarious did it take you all night to come up with that? belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #94

No, just saying "crickets" because I'm not spending 24/7 answering your specious objections True Blue Door Oct 2014 #95

Attempt to overthrow the Constitution outside of legal means of amendment. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #91

Truly amazing, isn't it? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #6

It's not treason as defined by the constitution. NuclearDem Oct 2014 #7

What you have is people correctly pointing out that the crime of treason onenote Oct 2014 #8

Like the OP clearly states RobertEarl Oct 2014 #9

The OP is wrong no matter how many times it calls vote suppression "treason" onenote Oct 2014 #15

he is making up his own definitions and trying to ram it into the definition of treason belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #20

what's truly amazing is the amount of people who do understand the definintion of treason belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #17

Well, why don't you tell us the definition? RobertEarl Oct 2014 #25

i already posted it you can find it there or in the constitution belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #26

Heh RobertEarl Oct 2014 #33

heh nice strawman - the dictionary doesnt trump the constitution belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #37

Almost as amazing as those who intractably limit the definition to only its legal declination. LanternWaste Oct 2014 #62

like i said then get a lawyer and sue them for treason- heaven forbid we go by legal belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #66

I Have Read No Posts Defending It ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #118

I agree Gothmog Oct 2014 #10

Vote suppression is seditious, destabilizing, destructive, unprincipled, immoral. Anti-America. Hortensis Oct 2014 #11

+1,000 freshwest Oct 2014 #41

it should also be treasonous DU behavior to VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #30

If the candidate sucks... bobclark86 Oct 2014 #38

THIER candidates suck not ours VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #43

Wow... so if there's a non-primaried Democrat bobclark86 Oct 2014 #50

if you dont vote for the Democrat no... VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #53

So, again, if a candidate is not a good person... bobclark86 Oct 2014 #58

the purpose of this website is to elect Democrats VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #71

So, if they're corrupt, vote yes anyway. Got it n/t bobclark86 Oct 2014 #72

if they are convicted of corruption they would be in jail VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #73

So you're a Bob Filner supporter, huh? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #81

Because Party over policy always works so well. Kermitt Gribble Oct 2014 #106

No because I KNOW which party I would RATHER see in power.... VanillaRhapsody Oct 2014 #107

Not treason. NCTraveler Oct 2014 #69

The GOP, increasingly controlled by the extreme religious right, wants a theocracy. We are well blkmusclmachine Oct 2014 #70

Treason was very specifically and narrowly defined in the Constitution in order to keep Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #75

Thread Ender. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2014 #78

And yet our ag has not seen fit to arrest the perpetrators Doctor_J Oct 2014 #76

This thread is bogged down with Jenoch Oct 2014 #83

yes. and the supreme court just endorsed it in texas. we are doomed. spanone Oct 2014 #84

ouch 38 electoral points for texas belzabubba333 Oct 2014 #86

Of course it is! nt ladjf Oct 2014 #101

GOP justifies war fighting as defense our all our rights EXCEPT voting? HereSince1628 Oct 2014 #103

Well yes, but Turbineguy Oct 2014 #104

Because R's own petty interests are their only country, not the United States. True Blue Door Oct 2014 #113

K & R davidpdx Oct 2014 #110

Didn't you hear? Pistorious, 5 years for murder? What's a vote? Do you see any shut downs? lonestarnot Oct 2014 #117

K&R! TeamPooka Oct 2014 #121