General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

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

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 01:35 PM

Oct 2014

continue to resist. That is a far cry from voting laws, no matter how wrong they may be.

If you insist on declaring treason is equal to war and the purpose of war is to force an outcome then you have described all law. All law seeks to employ force. Government by its definition is a monopoly on violent force.

And war, no matter how terrible it may be, it is not the absolute worst evil. In fact, you sound borderline willing to commit to a war-like level of violence to enforce your point (and if you aren't, why bother insisting on the analogy?).

Yet, your analogy fails. Treason is treason and you do not get to unilaterally re-define it. When Louis the XIV heard about the protests against him he called it treason. When he was told the protests were about him rather than the state he roared, "I am the state!"

Try not to be that guy.

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