Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

a reply to: intrepid

Well I'm confused by your logic(?).

Quoting out of context

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You know, if you want us to move on you could EASILY just say that you were wrong about the treason point and then rebring up your other points you'd like us to address that you are accusing us of ignoring right now.

Wrong about what? You could just as easily say you dismissed the entirety of my argument to quibble about a minor statement.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

I’m calling that you properly engage in my arguments instead of mistruing them to serve your own ends.

I believe that has been done conclusively, and that you have no more arguments.

Would you like to restate them, now that "treason" and "sedition" are pretty much wrapped up?

Sure, just for you.

It’s deep-state dinner theatre. The author is a) a coward for not showing his face, for using subversion and not the constitution to settle these matters, and b) a fool who ousted himself in the biggest way possible. In other words, some foolish coward believes he is the adult in the room, when his little, self-important opinion piece suggests the opposite.

He is definitely playing with treason, he is definitely engaging in propaganda, and just admitted to subverting the same institutions of democracy he tried to blame Trump for destroying. It’s embarrassing.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The author is a) a coward for not showing his face, for using subversion and not the constitution to settle these matters, and b) a fool who ousted himself in the biggest way possible. In other words, some foolish coward believes he is the adult in the room, when his little, self-important opinion piece suggests the opposite. He is definitely playing with treason, he is definitely engaging in propaganda, and just admitted to subverting the same institutions of democracy he tried to blame Trump for destroying. It’s embarrassing.

Much better.

I agree with almost all your points.

I think he should get together with his pals and 25th Amendment Trump. If not, rather than wait for the Republican congress, which has done nothing to stop this maniac of a president, they should at least resign en mass. That might get the ball rolling.

He is definitely playing with treason,

Opps, you did it again....

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Good grief. Here's the scenario.

Trump demands the NYT's turn over the writer.
The NYT's refuses.
The case goes to court.
The NYT's wins.

There are a #storm of tweets.
Trump is impeached.

Oh, but Trump is impeached with or without this letter. Trump will be impeached period, probably in 2019.

By the way, since we haven't heard a peep out of what happened in Helsinki, if you want to seriously look for treasonous acts, you might start there. Ain't no tellin' what trump told putin, or what shady deals he made since putin is trump's lodestar.

The most absurd and ridiculous thing I have ever read.

When has a leftist prediction ever come true? Oh no no no sweetheart, you're just going to have to deal with it.

No impeachment or 25th 😌

I mean, you can dream the dream.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A true patriot is willing to put themselves in danger though.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The author is a) a coward for not showing his face, for using subversion and not the constitution to settle these matters, and b) a fool who ousted himself in the biggest way possible. In other words, some foolish coward believes he is the adult in the room, when his little, self-important opinion piece suggests the opposite. He is definitely playing with treason, he is definitely engaging in propaganda, and just admitted to subverting the same institutions of democracy he tried to blame Trump for destroying. It’s embarrassing.

Much better.

I agree with almost all your points.

I think he should get together with his pals and 25th Amendment Trump. If not, rather than wait for the Republican congress, which has done nothing to stop this maniac of a president, they should at least resign en mass. That might get the ball rolling.

Suuure, life isn't that easy and you have to work for it.

If you want people to remove a duly elected POTUS, then you are also part of the problem and only emboldens me to challenge ingrates such as yourself and others.

My POTUS 😌

a reply to: Arnie123

If you want people to remove a duly elected POTUS, then you are also part of the problem and only emboldens me to challenge ingrates such as yourself and others.

Nixon was duly elected.
So were Clinton and Obama.

But I digress into deflection..

So it is unconstitutional to remove a POTUS? Then how come two methods a specified in the constitution?

a reply to: JasonBillung

You're assuming that this will happen. A what if scenario, so let me just stop you there.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Arnie123

If you want people to remove a duly elected POTUS, then you are also part of the problem and only emboldens me to challenge ingrates such as yourself and others.

Nixon was duly elected.
So were Clinton and Obama.

But I digress into deflection..

So it is unconstitutional to remove a POTUS? Then how come two methods a specified in the constitution?

Using UNDER-HANDED method yes it IS un constitutional.

a reply to: JasonBillung

Much better. I agree with almost all your points. I think he should get together with his pals and 25th Amendment Trump. If not, rather than wait for the Republican congress, which has done nothing to stop this maniac of a president, they should at least resign en mass. That might get the ball rolling.

That would be the proper, less cowardly, and constitutional way to do things. Politicians and bureaucrats need to be held accountable to the people for their actions.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: JasonBillung

You're assuming that this will happen. A what if scenario, so let me just stop you there.

But you brought up

If you want people to remove a duly elected POTUS, then you are also part of the problem and only emboldens me to challenge ingrates such as yourself and others.

And I responded:

So it is unconstitutional to remove a POTUS? Then how come two methods a specified in the constitution?

And you never really answered what I asked?

Fair enough. Must be a tough question to answer without having to take back why this "emboldens me to challenge ingrates such as yourself and others."

Others, like the writers of the constitution?

a reply to: yuppa

I asked:

So it is unconstitutional to remove a POTUS? Then how come two methods a specified in the constitution?

and you responded:

Using UNDER-HANDED method yes it IS un constitutional.

Ok, do you see your dis-connect there? Where did I mention doing anything unconstitutional? Down straw-man this. Be honest. Did I say anything about removing an (unbalanced) president in an unconstitutional method?

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You know, if you want us to move on you could EASILY just say that you were wrong about the treason point and then rebring up your other points you'd like us to address that you are accusing us of ignoring right now.

Wrong about what? You could just as easily say you dismissed the entirety of my argument to quibble about a minor statement.

About the treason point. Duh...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

About the treason point. Duh...

I already clarified what I meant. I imagine you now want to impugn my clarification as quickly as you dismissed my argument with the wave of the hand.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

It sure triggered you. I think it is obvious why this guy wanted to stay anonymous. Because he feared retaliation by people such as yourself. Also, no it isn't playing with treason. Why? See the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A true patriot is willing to put themselves in danger though.

I'm pretty sure the author of this op-ed is in danger. If he is discovered, he's going to lose his job. That's pretty dangerous.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

No... Not really. I would really like you to just admit you were wrong about this being anything related to treason. You know, show that you can concede a point?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

I would really like you to admit you were wrong about this being anything related to treason. You know, show that you can concede a point?

I was not wrong. Treason has a dictionary definition:

treason | ˈtriːz(ə)n |
noun [mass noun]
(also high treason) the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government: they were convicted of treason.
• the action of betraying someone or something: doubt is the ultimate treason against faith.
• (petty treason) historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.

Did I argue he is guilty of treason? No, I said he was playing with it.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

And you are wrong. There is nothing treasonous about what he was doing (and the phrase "playing with treason" has no meaning, btw). People in the government don't owe allegiance to the president. They owe it to the people or the Constitution. That is US Civics 101 right there. So I would like a retraction from you to show you can be honest. I won't and can't force you to give it, but as long as you don't you will continue to come across as a stubborn partisan and not an honest debater.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Last I checked, prosecutors don't use the dictionary to charge people.