• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has Trump committed treason?

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
That's pretty vague.
Any specific acts in mind?
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
That's pretty vague.
Any specific acts in mind?

I think perhaps the repeated false claims of the left now debunked are treason-ish

That's all they got? You can BETO your last dollar it's all innuendo and odd claims. where is the gravitas? no where to be found in the field of 20 some democrats wannabes.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?

Let's see you evidence?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
I have to wonder how bizarre the idea is that the knowledge of positions of other world leaders some how translates into " treason ".

Treason is punishable by death, probably the most serious crime in the Federal statutes.

Yet those trying to reverse the 2016 election, have adopted it and use it so casually, with not one scintilla of evidence, as if wishing it were so makes it so, like Russian collusion. Two years we were told by democrats that they had the evidence to prove collusion, and that as soon as the Mueller report came out, we would all see it. They were blatant liars.

So, the OP speculates that Trump has done something for which he should be put to death.

Now I understand that for many on the left, the death of their political opponents is the ultimate thing to wish for, but then if they had all they wanted, and they could remake America into their graven image, death might occur for questioning their workers paradise.

I find bandying about, and de facto accusing someone of treason to be despicable and disguising,.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I have to wonder how bizarre the idea is that the knowledge of positions of other world leaders some how translates into " treason ".

Treason is punishable by death, probably the most serious crime in the Federal statutes.

Yet those trying to reverse the 2016 election, have adopted it and use it so casually, with not one scintilla of evidence, as if wishing it were so makes it so, like Russian collusion. Two years we were told by democrats that they had the evidence to prove collusion, and that as soon as the Mueller report came out, we would all see it. They were blatant liars.

So, the OP speculates that Trump has done something for which he should be put to death.

Now I understand that for many on the left, the death of their political opponents is the ultimate thing to wish for, but then if they had all they wanted, and they could remake America into their graven image, death might occur for questioning their workers paradise.

I find bandying about, and de facto accusing someone of treason to be despicable and disguising,.

Yes, why is a disagreement in views treason?

The left claims call for civil dialog but it sure seems the more civil lefties are scarce and over the top commenting without substance is now dominating the left.

We even see more and more when they can get away with it, leaders on the left belittle Christian views (Biden, Rahm Emanual et al .... it's commonplace... while claiming to be Christian: Pelosi, Cuomo et al... )
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?

That's pretty vague.
Any specific acts in mind?


Or to put it in layman's terms, WTH are you talking about?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?

I suppose it would come down to how one defines "treason." It would also necessitate defining the interests of these dictators, as well as the interests of the United States.

One thing that I try to keep in mind is that a lot of these dictators and other rogue nations turned out that way because they (for whatever reason) felt the need to defend against imperialism and/or aggression from either the US or countries which are aligned with the US. In a sense, pursuing US national interests over the years has created these situations where we've gotten into bed with some rather unsavory characters associated with unsavory regimes.

Still, if a US president wants to reach out the hand of friendship to former adversaries, I can't see this as an act of treason. Treason involves making war against the United States, but if one is working for peace, that's the opposite of war. (I don't know that Trump is actually working for peace, but I also don't know if he's really in bed with the Russians either.)

If you're talking about "national interests," then that's a can of worms which can be defined and spun in all kinds of directions.

Personally, I try to think outside the box when it comes to foreign policy.

When it comes to foreign interference in the electoral process, that's an issue we'll have to face as a country, as we try to straddle a line between xenophobia/isolation and the openness and globalism that so many have embraced in recent decades. If we really didn't want foreigners to influence America, we would have kept them off our internet and off our airwaves. But it can also be argued that the benefit of having an open society outweighs the risk.

As for our foreign policy overall, I think we need to be a bit more forward-thinking in our perspective on the world, yet so many of our policies tend to reflect Cold War era thinking which may be outdated in today's world. With all the scare-talk about the evil Russians, it's like it's the 1950s all over again. (What always floors me about this is that I encounter so many people, whose only study of Russia amounts to a pamphlet written by Joe McCarthy, think that they're somehow experts in "how Russians think" and what their "true agenda" is. Even if they've never even met a Russian in their lives.)

On a more practical level, I think Trump is making a serious mistake by alienating some of our Latin American neighbors. I think it would be in our better interests to forge stronger ties within our own hemisphere. That would be more practical from a logistical standpoint. We are vulnerable on that front, especially if the Russians and/or Chinese form more satellites in the region due to our own policies which appear unfriendly.

China appears to be more malignant in recent years, but if that's the case, then we will likely need the Russians on our side in the event of any confrontation with China. Despite whatever misgivings we may have about Putin and his regime, I think it's in our better interests to forge better ties with Russia. We need them as an ally, for the sake of US interests. Similarly, when it comes to dealing with countries like Iran or other troubles in that region of the world, we'd be far better off working with the Russians rather than against them.

That would be for our interests, not necessarily their interests - although there would undoubtedly be mutual benefit.

I don't know to what degree they influenced or interfered in the election, although it's an even greater risk when it comes from domestic sources. There's all kinds of shenanigans and corruption associated with the electoral process, so if this whole thing gets the powers that be to get to work and clean up the system and shore up our vulnerabilities on the technical front, then I would see that as a step in the right direction.

But it's too late to unspill the milk, so it's best to just move forward.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
The bottom line is that if its not enough to anger his own party its probably not going to be impeachable. In this scenario its a mistake for 1 party to impeach another party's president. They keep talking about it. The Republicans kept wanting to impeach Obama and Clinton. The Democrats wanted to impeach the Bushes and lately Trump. None of this is new and is actually very annoying.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I suggest we take more care with the idea of treason. It is one of the highest offenses any individual can commit and shouldn't be taken lightly. You can make other arguments about the administration but I am not sure we have enough to label it as treason.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Trump's combover alone is treasonous, not to mention all the other stuff!!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
I would think that treason would need to be a crime a bit stronger than merely acting against the interests of the United States. So though I do believe that he very very probably broke several laws, treason is not one of them.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?
It's kind of hard to compare Trump with Benedict Arnold.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?

Yes,

and/or

No,

IMO, it doesn't matter our thoughts, it matter what can be proven in a court. We have to trust our legal system and government. Until this gets played out, Trump is innocent until it's proven otherwise. I think we have to give everyone equal benefit of the doubt.

Until it gets proven one way or another, it remains a matter of speculation. If Trump is found to be guilty, then he should be held accountable like anyone else.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's kind of hard to compare Trump with Benedict Arnold.
At least it's toned down from claims that he's Hitler.

I view both Hillary & Trump as intending good for the country.
But their styles & agendas are different. It's not treason to be
dislikable & of different political persuasion. And the Russian
collusion thingie has evaporated in a puff of desperate &
malicious wishful thinking.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
That's pretty vague.
Any specific acts in mind?

Not exactly just an overall trend in behavior. It is a sincere question on my part.

But the way that Trump has continually rejected the assessment of U.S. intelligence in favor of the word of leaders of foreign countries has me asking this question. If he withdraws troops or promotes military objectives of countries against the shared interests of U.S. allies...it seems to be flirting with the idea of treason.

I freely admit this is a stretch...I just am not sure how much of a stretch.

He denies even that Russia attacked the U.S. elections. To what extent is his denial an aid to our enemies?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I think perhaps the repeated false claims of the left now debunked are treason-ish

That's all they got? You can BETO your last dollar it's all innuendo and odd claims. where is the gravitas? no where to be found in the field of 20 some democrats wannabes.

I'm raising the question because I want to know how far away from treason is Trump's alignment with foreign leaders against his own administration.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I have to wonder how bizarre the idea is that the knowledge of positions of other world leaders some how translates into " treason ".

Treason is punishable by death, probably the most serious crime in the Federal statutes.

Yet those trying to reverse the 2016 election, have adopted it and use it so casually, with not one scintilla of evidence, as if wishing it were so makes it so, like Russian collusion. Two years we were told by democrats that they had the evidence to prove collusion, and that as soon as the Mueller report came out, we would all see it. They were blatant liars.

So, the OP speculates that Trump has done something for which he should be put to death.

Now I understand that for many on the left, the death of their political opponents is the ultimate thing to wish for, but then if they had all they wanted, and they could remake America into their graven image, death might occur for questioning their workers paradise.

I find bandying about, and de facto accusing someone of treason to be despicable and disguising,.

I don't want Trump put to death...I just want him to properly held accountable.

I can see now how offensive the OP might be...for that I apologize. But a good answer may be "No, because..." so I will accept those sorts of answers and be guided by them.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Yes, why is a disagreement in views treason?

The left claims call for civil dialog but it sure seems the more civil lefties are scarce and over the top commenting without substance is now dominating the left.

We even see more and more when they can get away with it, leaders on the left belittle Christian views (Biden, Rahm Emanual et al .... it's commonplace... while claiming to be Christian: Pelosi, Cuomo et al... )

Yes my apologies...I will introduce a definition of treason and more specifics shortly...
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I recall this came up a long time ago but was dismissed in the context I saw it considered. However, with the release of the Mueller report and all of the "non-collusion" the president has verbalized, I have to wonder whether it isn't again a worthwhile consideration. Having avoided explicitly "coordinating" has Trump by virtue of knowing the mind of dictators and their agendas acted in a way to promote their interests against those of the United States?

Trump is a flake. He's not smart enough to commit treason.
 
Top