A different view on the NYTimes op-ed about Trump

originally posted by: xuenchen
The NYTimes op-ed is a Democrat smear operation.

The election Autumn Witch of November is gaining its high winds.

💥😎💥

So THAT’S why it wears pants suits ad nauseum...high winds! Who knew?

originally posted by: curme
a reply to: norhoc

It is not treason. It's theft.

Taking the papers is theft. Manipulating decisions to only be made by the duly elected POTUS is treason, and writing the op-ed to incite rebellion against POTUS’ authority as a head of State is sedition.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Concise and accurate.
well posted

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: curme
a reply to: norhoc

It is not treason. It's theft.

Taking the papers is theft. Manipulating decisions to only be made by the duly elected POTUS is treason, and writing the op-ed to incite rebellion against POTUS’ authority as a head of State is sedition.

Sedition seems to be quite a rare charge thrown at people, considering that speech against the US government and it's leaders are still protected by the 1st amendment.

Also, it appears Sedition is a charge related to times of war and war-related issues.

So no, your post is not very accurate. It's quite short-sighted, actually.

a reply to: Kharron

I didn't read too much into that; just took it at face value. Problem is that the threshold for invoking the 25th is very high and I'd expect those who want to use it would have to invoke expert psychiatric examination to achieve that threshold.

Its all pretty academic. Considering how Trump won, with just the few precincts necessary to get over the Electoral college hurdle in just 3 or 4 states while losing the popular vote, I'd expect Trump will be a one term one-off POTUS. The Dems will come up with another Obama type and Trump will lose.

There's important investing information in that! The 2020 debacle coincides with the typical expiration date of a secular bull market. Knowing the Dems will doubtless take POTUS, and assuming they do fairly well in the mid-terms, intelligent investors will head to the sidelines into cash in 2019 and then watch the markets fall after the Dems take POTUS in 2020 and then roll profits into Treasuries.

Just an fyi.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SM2

i am just pointing out the trend man, no need to get your panties in a bunch. I am sorry if my comment put you in need of some coloring book therapy or a cry in.

Trend?

No.

You are pointing out unfounded conspiracy. No need to get my panties twisted over something you just made up.

And don't say you're sorry. You're not. Don't lie.

it is just an observation that is possible. Then again, it could all be true. we will have to wait and see.

Correct. Trump could be an idiot. That could be true.

But let's stick with your conspiracy.

Yes trend. it seems his opposition continually randomly throw a box full of crap at a wall and see what sticks. everything they have tried amounts to a whole lot of nothing or outright fabrication. we still need to find out about the Mueller investigation, but I would hazard a guess that it is also a whole lot of nothing. if they had something, they would have indicted by now...he obviously enjoys to indict people. Also, remember, that old joke that lawyers tell about you could indict a ham sandwich. So, i think they have nothing except hopes and dreams.

What is more conspiracy...watching the dems fabricate and obfuscate while folks like you spread the misinformation and lies? using people in government to mislead the people and spread more lies ? Or, me stating that this could be more of the same BS that the left has been doing ever since he won? Keep up the good work my friend!

a reply to: Lab4Us

You're wrong. Treason has nothing to do whatsoever with 'manipulating' the President or removing papers. Look it up. Jesus people... just because Trump SAYS something doesn't even remotely mean that it's true or that he has half a clue what he's talking about. Haven't you seen enough proof of that?? Parroting what he says only makes you look foolish.

a reply to: SM2

Yes trend. it seems his opposition continually randomly throw a box full of crap at a wall and see what sticks. everything they have tried amounts to a whole lot of nothing or outright fabrication.

As I said, unfounded conspiracy.

Trends can be witnessed, documented, etc.

we still need to find out about the Mueller investigation, but I would hazard a guess that it is also a whole lot of nothing. if they had something, they would have indicted by now...he obviously enjoys to indict people. Also, remember, that old joke that lawyers tell about you could indict a ham sandwich. So, i think they have nothing except hopes and dreams.

They have pressed charges, got guilt pleas, indictments and such.

That sounds like a whole lot of nothing, huh?

What is more conspiracy...watching the dems fabricate and obfuscate while folks like you spread the misinformation and lies? using people in government to mislead the people and spread more lies ? Or, me stating that this could be more of the same BS that the left has been doing ever since he won? Keep up the good work my friend!

More conspiracy? I'm not sure, but at least you admit you are creating conspiracy. Whether it's "more conspiracy" is irrelevant.

a reply to: introvert

so when have they indicted Trump or got a guilty plea from Trump?

Just because they have indicted a few people involved in his campaign on crimes committed a decade or more prior to the election doesnt make Trump guilty, get over yourself

but hey, its ok, he had sex with a porn star, that makes him the devil, oh, no, it was two porn stars now right? and he grabs women by thier *&^% . but they let him right? if not, they need to file a complaint for rape or assualt. Oh wait they didnt, because they at least at that time liked it, and they liked the money they got after it happened. So how is that a crime? maybe a misdemeanor charge for prositution who cares

Of course you can witness a trend, its not any else's fault you chose to not see the whole picture and wear your Clinton and Obama issued glasses constantly.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have relied on the war authorization that Congress passed after the September, 11, 2001 attacks to fight al-Qaeda across the globe.

Both administrations have argued that ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, but the Assad regime is unconnected to that, and lawmakers were quickly calling for a new war authorization for the latest strikes late Thursday evening.www.google.com...

We have legally been at war since this was passed shortly after 9/11.

a reply to: Isurrender73


Cute. That has to do with fighting terrorist groups. Did this person treasonously or seditiously aid al-Qaeda or iSIS?

Don't bother answering, we already know the answer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Isurrender73


Cute. That has to do with fighting terrorist groups. Did this person treasonously or seditiously aid al-Qaeda or iSIS?

Don't bother answering, we already know the answer.

I never said what happened was treasonous per US law. I was simply correcting someone's post who was in error. We are by definition in a declared war that has not been ended.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I never said what happened was treasonous per US law. I was simply correcting someone's post who was in error. We are by definition in a declared war that has not been ended.

And treason and sedition must occur with an enemy, which hasn't happened.

Trump asking Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails is treasonous

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: F4guy

That is incorrect. We declared War on Terrorism. We are actually in a perpetual state of war.

But I agree that this doesn't look like a case of treason verse the US as defined by law. But it is a case of treason against Trump as defined by litteral definition.

"Litteral"? I know what littoral means, but litteral? Or maybe literal with one t. But "literal definition makes no sense. All definitions are, by definition, literal. Otherwise you could have "figurative" definitions, or virtual definitions. In any eventdisloyalty to Trump is not treason. It is a mitsve.

It really disheartens me that Americans think it’s okay to illegally usurp a sitting President’s authority. I guess what you leftists don’t realize is that you’re normalizing that behavior in all administrations going forward, regardless of political affiliation.

Don’t let that stop you, however, as you turn this once great nation into the United Socialist States of America and turn it into yet another third world #hole. Way to go leftists!

a reply to: F4guy

I suppose pointing out an extra "t" makes you feel superior? But I don't think

eventdisloyalty

is one word.

Treason
1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

2. the action of betraying someone or something.

The person who wrote the NY times piece betrayed Trump. The act was treasonous against the person Donald Trump. But it is not an illegal act of treason as defined by US law.

I don't think using the term literal to seperate legal definition from the basic definition of a word was inappropriate, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You really should know what your talking about and avoid typos when you are pointing out others mistakes.