Donald Trump 2019

[brown water 3789]

20 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And -
 

No doubt a stable one at that. 

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've said it before, and maybe it's grounds for a separate thread, but how do Trump's actions not constitute treason?

I'm not one to throw the word around lightly, and I think its power is diminished when that happens (e.g., "TRUMP IS A TRAITOR BECAUSE OF HIS USE OF OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN!!!").  But when we consider the REAL meaning of "treason", it pretty much comes down to giving and comfort to an enemy of the United States. 

ISIS (ISIL) is without question an enemy of the United States.  We were in conflict with them as late as March of this year.  Trump took action that directly led to their escape from confinement following capture, which was a known, likely outcome of that action.  Seems pretty treason-y to me.

Yes.  It’s treason.  I’m not joking when I post he should be tried, then hung if guilty.  I have no idea why he gets a pass on this.  Are we too sensitive to discuss these things?

[Dnaguy 12723]

15 minutes ago, SameSame said:

I guarantee you he has never set foot in a grocery store in his life.

That would be a nice question to ask during a debate.... something like:

“President Trump, how much is a gallon of milk?”

I wonder what his response would be ... actually he’d probably just say “ I never had to buy any because I have people for that because I’m a rich stable genius” or something.

[Chad Fuck 18166]

1 minute ago, Dnaguy said:

That would be a nice question to ask during a debate.... something like:

“President Trump, how much is a gallon of milk?”

I wonder what his response would be ... actually he’d probably just say “ I never had to buy any because I have people for that because I’m a rich stable genius” or something.

"I buy and sell hotels, not milk."  

You'd get something equally dismissive, disdainful and misleading such as that.

[conVINCEd 21477]

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yes.  It’s treason.  I’m not joking when I post he should be tried, then hung if guilty.  I have no idea why he gets a pass on this.  Are we too sensitive to discuss these things?

On the steps of the Capitol.

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:

On the steps of the Capitol.

He likes Chairman Kim so much, we can let that asshole choose the method.  

Edited October 14, 2019 by ChiTownDoc

[NWBuck 8630]

16 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yes.  It’s treason.  I’m not joking when I post he should be tried, then hung if guilty.  I have no idea why he gets a pass on this.  Are we too sensitive to discuss these things?

Wanna bet we could actually talk him into this?

"President Trump, we know how to get everyone in the country talking about how well hung you were..."

[conVINCEd 21477]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He likes Chairman Kim so much, we can let that asshole choose the method.  

Starving him to death or putting him downrange for mortar practice probably would probably get struck down by the Supreme Court.  I’m fine with a good ole fashioned hanging, as long as they make the drop short enough that his neck doesn’t break instantly.

[Js1 87287]

35 minutes ago, SameSame said:

I guarantee you he has never set foot in a grocery store in his life.

 

17 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

That would be a nice question to ask during a debate.... something like:

“President Trump, how much is a gallon of milk?”

I wonder what his response would be ... actually he’d probably just say “ I never had to buy any because I have people for that because I’m a rich stable genius” or something.

[David Dennison 19569]

18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Yes.  It’s treason.  I’m not joking when I post he should be tried, then hung if guilty.  I have no idea why he gets a pass on this.  Are we too sensitive to discuss these things?

According to Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution, "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."

For Donald Trump to have committed treason, there has to be an enemy of the United States. Who would the enemy be?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

For Donald Trump to have committed treason, there has to be an enemy of the United States. Who would the enemy be?

ISIS, the Taliban, North Korea, Vladimir Putin.

Really kind of a pick ‘em at this point.

[Horn Dog 10188]

The GOP?

[David Dennison 19569]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

ISIS, the Taliban, North Korea, Vladimir Putin.

Really kind of a pick ‘em at this point.

If there is no declaration of war by Congress, are they enemies of the state?

[4th&Five 42026]

Such a bitch. Barr must’ve swallowed  

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

36 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I can only imagine the constant months-long outrage generated by Fox if Obama supporters made a similar video.

You don't have to imagine it. They pearl-clutched over a picture of Kathy Griffin and a modern take on the play Julius Caesar  for a solid two months. Constant preaching on morality and civility. When Trump literally tweets videos as crass or worse or his sycophants produce a video 100x as repulsive as Griffin's photo, it's just "LOL" "owning the libs" "snowflakes". 

Infuriating. 

[jimmyjazz 47319]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

According to Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution, "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."

For Donald Trump to have committed treason, there has to be an enemy of the United States. Who would the enemy be?

Christ, I posted a theory on this just a couple of hours ago.  Scroll up.

[David Dennison 19569]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Christ, I posted a theory on this just a couple of hours ago.  Scroll up.

Settle down.

[jimmyjazz 47319]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Settle down.

It's not like it wasn't in the actual post you replied to.

ISIS is the enemy.  We've been at war with them for years.  To argue otherwise is silly semantics.

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

You don't have to imagine it. They pearl-clutched over a picture of Kathy Griffin and a modern take on the play Julius Caesar  for a solid two months. Constant preaching on morality and civility. When Trump literally tweets videos as crass or worse or his sycophants produce a video 100x as repulsive as Griffin's photo, it's just "LOL" "owning the libs" "snowflakes". 

Infuriating. 

I'm old enough to remember weeks of outrage because a restaurant didn't want to serve Sarah Sanders.  Because of kiddy concentration camps.   

Every accusation they make about lack of civility is a confession.

[TexLonghorn 5737]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If there is no declaration of war by Congress, are they enemies of the state?

There is no requirement for declaration of war.

Quote

 

Enemy of the United States Law and Legal Definition

According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by TexLonghorn

[tantric superman 4668]

I don't see it as treason.  He's sacrificing the Kurds so that Turkey (which I guess is still technically an ally) can ultimately destroy Syria.  Long game.

Sort of like the old English kings telling their archers to shoot into the bloody mosh pit knowing that some of their own soldiers will fall. 

 

[David Dennison 19569]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not like it wasn't in the actual post you replied to.

ISIS is the enemy.  We've been at war with them for years.  To argue otherwise is silly semantics.

Exactly. Semantics matter. Any lawyer worth his salt can make a very convincing argument that in order for there to be an enemy, the United States must be at war, and in order for the United States to be at war, Congress must declare war.

That's the argument, at least.

[David Dennison 19569]

1 minute ago, TexLonghorn said:

No declaration of war necessary.

 

Are you sure that statute applies to treason?

[TexLonghorn 5737]

You weren't asking about treason, you were asking about what qualifies as an enemy of the state.

[TexLonghorn 5737]

Any lawyer worth his salt can make a very convincing argument that the definition of "enemy of the state" in this statue about war should then be applicable in deciding whether treasonous aid of an "enemy of the state" has occurred.  That's the argument, at least.

Edited October 14, 2019 by TexLonghorn

[David Dennison 19569]

Just now, TexLonghorn said:

You weren't asking about treason, you were asking about what qualifies as an enemy of the state.

Yeah, and that particular statute deals with enemies of the state regarding spoils of war. I'm not sure that definition would still be used in terms of treason, but treason has been codified, so it might.

[TexLonghorn 5737]

You're setting up the ridiculous situation where a president (or any other persons) could conspire with a foreign force to attack and destroy the Capitol Building and everyone who might be inside, but the president would not commit treason in that act because Congress would not have declared war at that point.  And if the destruction is severe enough, there may be an extended time of attack against the US that would not involve any treason for you because no declaration of war yet.

[David Dennison 19569]

11 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

Any lawyer worth his salt can make a very convincing argument that the definition of "enemy of the state" in this statue about war should then be applicable in deciding whether treasonous aid of an "enemy of the state" has occurred.  That's the argument, at least.

And that's a good argument to make.

Here's one UT law professor's take. It's pretty interesting regarding Russia.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgotten-what-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

BUT OBAMA!

The tinfoil talking points inform your every post, Swindle.  I don't suppose a sucker knows they're a sucker, but . . . you're a sucker.

Not an argument, but  keep circle jerkin around that Trump Cookie.  I wonder which one of you TDS folks will be the one that has to eat it???

Are you saying that the CIA, during the Obama administration, didn't arm the moderate rebels in Syria (which was directed by John McCain?) They did so with the intention of them rallying to supress the Assad regime and that shit backfired.  The aftermath was that they diverted those arms and resources to Iraq during the Obama years.  Wouldn't you know, the mainstream narrative was Obama left Iraq and ISIS was empowered!! All the while they were empowered by us arming them to supress Assad.  BUT WE HAVE TO BE THERE OR THEY"LL COME HERE!?? 

 

 Maybe you lefties will actually stand for the anti-war principle this time being that Trump hypocritically deployed troops to Saudi Arabia to help fight the Yemenis (which have also been slaughtered due to our support of the violent Saudi Regime) while simultaneously clamoring on Twitter to END THE ENDLESS WARS!!?!?!!?

Trump has to grapple with that hypocrisy with the anti-war crowd, I say bring em' home and fuck interventionism.  

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by American Swindle
fuck interventionism

[RomaVicta 30629]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

Meh, not sure if that meets the threshold.

However,I think the argument could be made that John Brennan's actions during Obama's term constitutes treason as his apparatus literally armed ISIS, but I don't expect this take to get any love on this thread as he's been a force for what seems to be the continued coup to get rid of the Dotard since day 1.  

It is really amazing to see those have so much hate for a democratically elected president that they are willing to side with the IC's abuse of power to see him go down.   

On the other hand, as an anti-war advocate, I'm pissed that the orange man is letting the SA troop deployment happen while simultaneously pulling troops out of Syria.  Bring the troops home across the board I say. 

 

 

Negged for being non-sequitur. Your attempt to put your feet on as many bases as possible to make yourself seem balanced is comical enough to almost cancel out the neg. 

You dress up Trump's coup complaint in deep state conspiracy sheep's clothing. You don't bother to support your point about Obama/Brennan/apparatus literally arming ISIS and how, if true, this constitutes treason against the US as opposed to merely the result of short sighted policy. Was the Iraq invasion treason for W? It's maybe the worst policy decision of my lifetime and I was against it from the first, but I didn't see the lying justification and fiasco of an outcome to be treasonous. Criminal probably, but not treason.

Was arming what became the Taliban and Al Quaeda to fight the Soviets treason? Your point is weak.

But, you're a peace-loving kind of a guy which the libs usually dig, right? You're just going to pilloried because of the ol' echo-chamberin', circle jerkin' lib cabal. Your arguments are so strong, that prejudice is the only reason they could be rejected. Slick.

[Captainant 28600]

6 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I say bring em' home and fuck interventionism. 

If by that you mean, "send em' to Saudi Arabia and intervene over there because... reasons?" Then you've got the right idea for what's going on

[jimmyjazz 47319]

30 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I don't see it as treason.  He's sacrificing the Kurds so that Turkey (which I guess is still technically an ally) can ultimately destroy Syria. 

So taking action that directly benefits captive ISIS terrorists doesn't make the discussion?

[tantric superman 4668]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So taking action that directly benefits captive ISIS terrorists doesn't make the discussion?

I think anything can be in the discussion.  I just think that there is a whole lot of leeway in terms of what is treasonous when you don't have one or two big nations that make up all the combatants. 

[American Swindle 102]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for being non-sequitur. Your attempt to put your feet on as many bases as possible to make yourself seem balanced is comical enough to almost cancel out the neg. 

You dress up Trump's coup complaint in deep state conspiracy sheep's clothing. You don't bother to support your point about Obama/Brennan/apparatus literally arming ISIS and how, if true, this constitutes treason against the US as opposed to merely the result of short sighted policy. Was the Iraq invasion treason for W? It's maybe the worst policy decision of my lifetime and I was against it from the first, but I didn't see the lying justification and fiasco of an outcome to be treasonous. Criminal probably, but not treason.

Was arming what became the Taliban and Al Quaeda to fight the Soviets treason? Your point is weak.

But, you're a peace-loving kind of a guy which the libs usually dig, right? You're just going to pilloried because of the ol' echo-chamberin', circle jerkin' lib cabal. Your arguments are so strong, that prejudice is the only reason they could be rejected. Slick.

Is arming terrorists treason?  Let's say they killed some of our service members in Iraq, this would mean that we literally armed an enemy that helped kill our soldiers. The argument can be made. 

Bush committed War Crimes, not Treason.

I would argue that Trump could be impeached on the grounds of aiding SA in their slaughter and famine of Yemenis more so than this Ukraine deal.  

Also, the Kurds have the support of Syria now their only ally, but we don't like Syria, are ya'll okay with that now since we care so much about the Kurds or is it a "BUT ASSAD!!" deal breaker?

I know, it was probably Tulsi that told Assad to do it....

It's enough to make one's head spin I know!

[RomaVicta 30629]

Was the policy to arm terrorists who would kill Americans? You avoid the key issue and question. Was the policy about aiding a known enemy? I doubt that it was.

[shnsajax 3607]

So now we are leaving 1,000 troops in Syria to prevent the revival which was supposedly 100% defeated according to Trump. And in the process allowed the slaughter of god knows how many of our allies. And I am sure the GOP is still handing out donuts as we speak. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by shnsajax

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

15 hours ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Stay classy, Democrats.

 

Rabid dogs attack Trump rally attendees.

 

Needs more guillotines.

 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

According to Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution, "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."

For Donald Trump to have committed treason, there has to be an enemy of the United States. Who would the enemy be?

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

ISIS, the Taliban, North Korea, Vladimir Putin.

Really kind of a pick ‘em at this point.

If we can prove he was giving classified info to Russia that's a start.  And that's easy.  There's all kinds of other charges we could legitimately bring on his fat ass. 

[Chad Fuck 18166]

What in the ever loving First Amendment FUCK is this?

https://www.state.gov

Quote

OCTOBER 11, 2019

Being a Christian Leader

SECRETARY POMPEO'S SPEECH AT THE 2019 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS WORLD CONFERENCE

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[DDD Dad 14663]

16 hours ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

Stay classy, Democrats.

 

Rabid dogs attack Trump rally attendees.

I didn't see any dogs in that video, much less rabid ones.

Edited October 14, 2019 by DDD Dad

[DDD Dad 14663]

 

[DDD Dad 14663]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but this just popped up on my Twitter feed.  Can someone please decode for me?

 

[Junior Miller 1502]

or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

 

i don't see how trump actively aiding Russian direct attack on America's election for his benefit then giving them the "aid and comfort" of covering up the attack and failing to levy sanctions passed by congress isn't 100 percent treason by definition. It certainly is. 

people are just too scared and conditioned to not go that far in accusing for treason. It's like no one wants to believe what is happening is actually happening. That the USA is in free fall and becoming more of a dictatorial police state by the day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Junior Miller

[Asithappens 978]

Trump is shit and so are the people who still support him. 

A lot of them are evangelical pieces of shit.

[atomheartbevo 90674]

15 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

It's like no one wants to believe what is happening is actually happening. That the USA is in free fall and becoming more of a dictatorial police state by the day. 

I don’t buy the police state thing, but the first sentence accurately describes a lot of the US today.   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don’t buy the police state thing, but the first sentence accurately describes a lot of the US today.   

Where is the line between “Police State” and “Not a Police State?”

Seems like we’re very much there on a few metrics like incarceration numbers, concentration camps, and prisons for profit. 

I mean, arming school teachers is now a legitimate debate. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DixonHur 11970]

18 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Trump is shit and so are the people who still support him. 

A lot of them are evangelical pieces of shit.

All evangelicals are pieces of shit...because anyone who tries to force their beliefs on others is by definition a shitty person.  

If the evangelical Christians had their way we'd be looking at a government similar to that of Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. 

[RPM 26677]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don’t buy the police state thing, but the first sentence accurately describes a lot of the US today.   

We have more people in prison than any other country on Earth. Guess that means we are the worst people on the planet or we have a police state. I vote the latter.

[Eskimohorn 5682]

Well, in fairness, the only impediments were things like "laws" and "regulations."  Based on current track record, they fairly assumed that meant that they didn't matter at all.

They were just going to push it through until Trump got a look at Gowdy and thought he looked like the cryptkeeper, you know, like a smaller version of himself.