Big Bass

How very perspicacious of you, glaucoma. Wow! You will be shaving soon. Then you will be telling us that it was really you, who wrote the theory of relativity.

straightUp Loc: California

I never said Trump was guilty of treason (a word you don't need to capitalize, by the way.) All I said was that collusion with a foreign power to influence the elections could be considered a treasonous act. Whether Trump is guilty of doing so is another matter that has yet to be determined.


First of all, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you think it is. Releasing POWs is something every war time president has done. You make such a big deal out of the 5 terrorists Obama released when Bush released 500 of them. Obviously, there is a precendence that doesn't agree with your perception.

I would say that "aid and comfort to the enemy" is a pretty vague statement and that other circumstances need to be weighed in. Clearly, "aiding" and "comforting" the enemy can range from giving them guns and intelligence to providing medical care for their captured (which is actually required by the Geneva Conventions). At least when Obama released those prisoners he was doing it to save the life of an American soldier.

Now, I will admit that I'm not 100% behind Obama on this. I find the whole affiar questionable, but I think the fact that the charge of treason never got beyond the angry lynch mob shows that the government (and this includes the U.S. Army) does NOT interpret the release of prisoners as an act of treason.


For the second time, I never said Trump was guilty of treason.


For the third time, I never said Trump was guilty of treason.



Well, this has nothing to do with treason but I can certainly answer your question...

First, before stating the violation let me point out that I have not been able to find any such "standing order" as you described it. I am inclined to think you are confusing a rhetorical statement Bush made during a speech for an actual law. Or maybe it's your sources that got it confused and you just don't know any better. In anycase, I challenge you to find the the actual order that you seem to think exists and until you do, I will continue to base my opinion on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) which says...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This means that the agreements we ratified under the U.N. are in fact recognized by our own constitution and this includes the Nuremberg Principals... specifically Nuremberg Principal VI, which defines "crimes against peace" (ratified in 1950) and the embodyment of the Nuremburg Principals in the UN Charter as part of the Rome Statute (ratified in 1998).

Nuremberg Principle VI:
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:"
(i)Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances"

So the question is... does our attacks on Yemen qualify as a war of aggression? This can best be answered by a general "no-shit" recognition of the fact that dropping bombs and killing people is aggressive and the absence of any justification, such as the right to defend yourself against foreign invasion which is outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Yemen is being ripped apart by a civil war. Prior to the war, the country was ruled by the Ali Abdullah Saleh but he's been out since 2015 and in exile (Saudi Arabia) he continues to command counter-attack forces. He did actually appeal to the UN, citing Article 51 and stating that there is just cause for the UN act against the rebels, but Article 51 states that any such justification is only warranted when a country is being attacked from outside forces, which was not the case in Yemen. The conflict is between factions within the country hence the term "civil" war. From the international perspective a civil war is a matter of self-determination and from a legal standpoint their concerns are entirely humanitarian. This same definition suggests that Saudi-Arabia and now the U.S. are in fact outside aggressors operating in Yemen without justification by the Security Council AND both countries, certainly Saudi-Arabia, have committed crimes against humanity as seen by the large number of civilian casualties.


For the fourth time, I never said Trump was guilty of treason.


LOL... Maybe if you actually read what I write instead of freaking out about what you *think* I wrote you could save yourself some time.


Last I checked, the investigators have stated that there is NO evidence that the Obama Administration was spying on Trump. So... all that crap you gave me when you thought I was accusing Trump of treason? Yeah, I'm shoving it all back at you... So... where's this evidence that Obama was spying on Trump?


And for the last time... I never said Trump was guilty of treason.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

A politician only looks towards the here and now, a statesman looks towards generations to come. In the vast depth of the public, we all have been subject to leaders and politicians who do not keep their word. The Politician (which was once called a professional liar) has now been defined as a profession. The politician does not take a stand and attempts to appease everyone. Donald Trump is not a politician. Even Nancy Pelosi called the failure of the “Reform and replace of Obamacare” a rookie mistake.
Donald Trump is smart enough to know he will not please everyone. And right now the democrats are slandering him into oblivion. If they don’t quit, I will tell you right here and right now I would not blame Donald Trump if he marches into these people’s homes and arrest them, for slander. That is what it is.
Members of the Democrat Party, members of the Press, and other people have slandered our new President. They went as far as spying on him. They have charged him in public with certain crimes in which no evidence of their allegations has surfaced. Bearing False witness against thy neighbor is still a crime.


ISIS is a direct example of abandoning the Iraqis after Iraqi freedom, not because of the Gulf War. Against the warning from President Bush, President Obama pulled out. Creating a political vacuum. Which was filled by ISIS, and Obama sat by idlily, allowing them to gain ground. ISIS is a direct result of the weakness of Obama.
Benghazi, was an operation similar to the Fast and the Furious operation only in Libya. Fast and Furious failed here in America, and it failed again in Libya. And when Ambassador Stevens needed his country most, the Obama administration abandoned him. This was not a result of the Bush administration but a direct result of the Obama Administration. Benghazi was a failure on the watch of President Obama. When Mitt Romney accused him, Obama said, “I am responsible”. Therefore, by his own admittance, Obama was responsible for Benghazi.

This is rumor. There is no evidence. This is the third time I asked for evidence from you and you have deflected the question. By deflecting from the simple question of, “Where is your evidence?” you are either intentionally slandering the president of the United States, or your sources are inaccurate. Either way, by stating that the president violated the constitution without evidence is Bearing false witness against thy neighbor, which is called slander.

Being a grandson of Two Lithuanian Immigrants, and One Italian Immigrant, and one Irish immigrant, I can say this: Trump’s first and second immigration executive orders, are well with in his right of President. The anti-patriotism comes at the opponents of the executive order. The Order did not bar a particular race or religion, but rather barred those entering this country from terrorist states. President Obama’s administration identified the very same states singled out in the executive order. Have you read the order? Nowhere in the order does it bar the religious groups, but it does bar the extremist groups.
Let me ask you this, would you release murderers, thieves, and rapists from the prisons? However, an argument could be made, that by locking these people up, you are violating their religious rights and are a bigot, racist, etc. We lock up Christian Extremists, as well as Jewish Extremists, what makes Muslim Extremists so immune to the rules of basic religious belief, thou shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, all nations, of all societies follow these basic rules. Therefore, by banning those from nations that harbor terrorists are justified.

Then here it is. A man posting a statement without proper evidence will be ignored. Its that simple. You stated you don’t post anything without evidence? Well, where’s the evidence of an American attack by Donald J Trump? Where is the official documentation that supports your claim?
No evidence, the incident didn’t happen. That is what I was told about Obama, then therefore, same rules apply. No evidence no incident, all rumors.

I speak English, Italian, Latin, and various computer languages. And the following text can be taken at face value,
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.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
This is the exact text of the United States Constitution, Article Three, Section Three.
1. Levying war against the United States is treason.
2. Adhering to their Enemies is treason
3. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
Three points, stated clearly. Medical assistance is not aid or comfort to the enemy, by the requirement of the Geneva Convention that you already stated. In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason, may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
I hope you now understand the Constitutional rule on treason. If you need more just ask.
You are very, very touchy on the fact that I accused you, that you accused Trump of treason. The fact is I may have gotten your post and someone else’s post intertwined. But never the less, you are still charging Trump of a crime. You state it was an attack in Yemen. Yemen is listed as one of the countries harboring terrorists. These countries are free game, until they give up their terrorists. They will not do this, therefore the war that was declared in 2001 is still going on. Until a cease fire is signed, America will still be at war with these nations. Therefore, constitutionally speaking, and in accordance with the rules of Geneva Convention and the united nations, Trump is well within his right to order any attack against terrorists. Period. End of Subject on this matter. The statue you stated applies only in peace time. We are and have been at war, therefore the statue does not apply.

son of witless

They must have their illusions. I notice they never prove anything. Obama so proud of his Black half, so ashamed of this White half.

straightUp Loc: California

Well if you want to use the word in a rhetorical sense, that's fine, but the actual definition can be found in a dictionary.

1. n. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
2. n. One who holds or seeks a political office.
- American Heritage Dictionary

As far as I know... The POTUS is a political office and Trump did seek that office and he holds it now. So, according to the dictionary definition, that makes him a politician.
What's interesting is that there *is* a third definition in the American Heritiage Dictionary...

3. n. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering:

So, there's that negative connotation you seem to gravitate to. But I want to point out that even if you think Trump doesn't match the third definition he still *IS* a politician according to the first and second definitions. Also, if any of the suspicions that Trump was involved in scheming turn out to be true then of course the third definition would also be a match. None of these suspicions have been proven yet, so I won't make any accusations but he is the first president to come into office while under investigation for scheming.

She wasn't calling the failure a rookie mistake, she was calling the attempt a rookie mistake. And although she was being polite, I think we can give Trump that Mulligan because he really is rookie, but Paul Ryan? Jesus, what a total idiot. He's been trying for seven years to replace the ACA... 'Kind of hard to attribute his idiocracy to a lack of experience. He's just a moron.

You really think it takes that much intelligence to know that?

I'm detecting some emotions here. I bet in a cooler mood you wouldn't be so quick to suggest a tyrannical violation of the 1st Amendment as an acceptable response to being called a racist. And that is probably the closest anyone has come to slandering Trump because there's no actual evidence that he is a racist. Everything else people have said about him are at the very least based on circumstantial evidence which is more than I can say for the slander Trump himself is guilty of when he continued to insist that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

In fact, Trump is probably one of the most slanderous politicians we've ever elected to office... His entire campaign was dominated by negative attacks on the character of everyone from Hilary to Obama to any news channel that he didn't like, calling them "fake news". He also accused Obama of wiretapping the Trump Tower and as much as you seem to think it's true, the investigations were very clear in stating that there is NO such evidence.
No president in history has been as accusatory without evidence as Trump and his "Tweets of Slander" Not to mention that he has publically insulted a long list individuals in a way that we have never seen from a president. He has a reputation for being slanderous and insulting and mean-spirited so when I see you getting all upset because the Democrats are saying mean things about him... well, I'm just going to mention the word hipocrisy and suggest you look that one up.


Wow, just when I didn't think you could be more hipocritcal... In one breath you accuse the Democrats of false accusations while at the same time falsely accusing the Democrats of spying. It's odd that in your accusations of slander the only actual example you mention is the false accusation that Trump himself made.
Whatever you do... Don't persue a career in law ;)


How the hell is medical assistance not considered aid or comfort? I speak English, Spanish, German and I know at least 10 different computer languages... and none of it helps me understand the complete lack of logic you exhibit with that statement alone.


I don't think you quite understand the message Madison was sending in this passage from the Federalist No. 43. He was actually posing an argument AGAINST the "three points, clearly stated" which he referred to as the insertion of a constitutional definition of the crime." Read it again. If you have any questions, just ask.


Next time you falsely accuse me of something I'll try to remember that defending myself makes me "touchy"


And that's fine... I'm not angry. I was just saying that I didn't accuse him of treason.


I disagree with your interpretations but before explaining that, I just want to point out that whatever previleges we make for ourselves the Nuremberg Principals still remain effective laws agreed upon by an international consortium that includes the United States. So my argument stands. Just because we don't play by our own rules doesn't mean the rules no longer exist. The attack on Yemen was a clear violation of the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter which offers no exception for attacks on countries that are not attacking anyone else. The sovereign nation of Yemen is not attacking anyone.

I do recognize that terrorist attacks involving Yemeni participants have occured but I don't think that should make Yemen a target of military attacks anymore than the United States deserves to be bombed even though we have found terrorists that are in fact American. I also recognize that the Bush Administration did establish a very low-standard of justice, just short of lynch-mob mentality, that purports to justify such attacks but the rest of the world, most of America and myself find that policy a gross violation of human decency.


A cease-fire? really? OK... now, I'm thinking you're just talking out of your ass. Where's that reference to the "standing order" I asked you for? Can't find it? Hoping I won't ask again?


Oh, don't you wish. Wouldn't it be nice if you could wrap up the entire argument with a blatant lie and say that's the end of it?
According to CENTOM, the the mission wasn't to attack terrorists as you are suggesting. The mission was to raid a specific location to confiscate computer equipment but the operation went horribly wrong and airstrikes were called in causing a major clusterfuck that killed many civilians and one American.

I'm not going to judge the relevence of that raid to the war on terrorism but I am stating with confidence that according to international law, we had no business there in the first place. You can argue that the Bush Doctine warrants our military actions but that would still be in direct conflict with our international agreements. Bush himself has been found guilty of war crimes by the International Court, which of course they are powerless to do anything about. (Although, there is some suspicion that this is why for the last 8 years Bush only made one trip outside the U.S. and has taken up painting and a low-profile retirement.)


Yeah, you might want to do a little research before making ridiculous statements like that. Beyond the fact that what you just said is a wholesale lie, it doesn't even make sense. Even a child can see that rules of warfare apply to war not peace. But hey... thanks for the laugh.

Glaucon

We all have our elusions and delusions that cause us to unfailingly choose politicians who lie to us and then whine when they lie to us. It is those true believing right wing fanatics who believe they are able to clearly the illusions and delusions of others and are totally blind to their own. They demand proof for the assertions of others and are unable to accept the proof proffered to them. They also read minds: "Obama so proud of his black half and so ashamed of his white half" and even Obama doesn't know what witless asserts that Obama is proud of and what he is ashamed of. witless is unable to even hear anything outside his party line talking points, so he impervious to anything that might disprove anything he has been programmed to believe. Never try to prove anything to a rock or a tree or a witless.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Let me first begin with this.

Even though I disagree with you on many of the conclusions you come to in your argument, I do respect you as a debater. If only you could stop the condensation you portray maybe we could have a comprehensive argument and learn something here. And maybe the wisdom of you and I could share notes and instead of being at each other's throats, we could set aside our differences and solve the problems we now face.

Make no mistake, I like you are very upset at the actions of our leaders who serve America. I like you believe that these people who call themselves so called adults, from Trump to Nancy Pelosi, to Paul Ryan, to pick a person out of 535 of Congress, or anyone of the current Presidential administration. Make no mistake, I think we all can agree that over the past 30 years since 1988, the so called adults have failed you and I.

First of all, we all lost America. It is all of our faults. We once were a country that would go through hell for our children, and today it seems as if it is every man for themselves, however we must punish the rich for being rich and we must steal money from the government because they have an unlimited supply of money. We watch as leaders from both the Republicans and the Democrats do not work to improve this country, but they work to steal our money and steal our lands and call it governmental privilege. From Rodney King during the daddy Bush administration, to Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Columbine during the Clinton administration, to 911 and the war in the middle east, to atrocities we absorbed as Americans, during the promise of the Obama Administration, to the promise of a new administration.

First of all, I would be happy with the complete and total repeal of Obamacare with no replacement. Because the Government of the United States cannot solve problems with Social Principles within the issues. But the government can restrict the actions of people based on principles that the government operates on. Even Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, all complained about the actions of Congress.

But that is somewhat out of our control. The way you come across is pompus, like Trump, and you do not state your evidence nor explain your point, instead, (with the exception of the previous quote), you have attacked the way I communicate my ideas. If this is what we resorted to on this or any forum, then we are no different than Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton.

Now, for me, I have been frustrated with our government for many, many years. But as a Pioneering American from Pioneering roots, I have found ways to go around the government and life a good life. Now this does not mean, I have done illegal things to go around the government, what this means is I will not allow what goes on 2000 miles away from me to interfere with my life or my happiness. I suggest the same for you, if you do that then great, you have both knowledge and wisdom.

But with wisdom and knowledge you know that there are many problems that have a potential to disrupt our utopia we are trying to create. Now, I have heard arguments between children, be more productive than Trump and the media yelling and screaming at each other. If this is our new reality, then we as parents, we as adults have failed an entire generation. And we must straighten them up.

We can sit here for the next million years splitting hairs of what you say or what I say. And we could end up in an immortal battle that shall never end. Or we can look at the principles in which are in common among all of us, and stop the bickering and find a solution.

I can complain about what you said, until I am blue in the face, or even until my computer blows up, and still we will get no where, just like Congress did for the past 30 years. Or we can set our differences aside, think of our children and fight for them.

You know as I do, what is right and wrong and we know the differences between the two. We see that the world is not black and white. But my view point fails just as yours does. But one thing you are missing, that I'm missing, is that we need the caution of the other side. We need the wisdom of both sides to build. Yeah, it is easy to insult and tear each other down, we have 30 years of history on that, but it is much more profitable, to work together and find common ground, to find solutions to a failing health care bill. To a failing national security and immigration. To the loss of the American Identity.

Most of what you have responded to me, I can see your point. But International Law does not take precedence over the sovereignty of a long established nation. Look around you, Rome is burning from Berlin to Washington, and no one is standing up for these old principles that I write about and am loyal to. No, the principles of the Ten Commandments mean nothing at all, they are just rules set down thousands of years ago by some old guy that mean nothing to the current generation.

And the generation before them, are fueling this denial of the principles. But still the consequences of the principles still occur. I said it once as I will say again, and I even said it during the deaf ear of the Obama and Clinton administrations, it is time we all sit down at the table and express our feelings on these issues, and back them up in a responsible understandable way. We should share our ideas rather than be condescending to each other.

The first lesson we all must realize is that no person or government can force anyone to do anything they would not do normally. I cannot convince you about my view point as you cannot convince me of mine. If you hear any of this message I am trying to send, you will understand, we can and we do, take these complicated situations and make them simple.

How do we make them simple? We unite. You want the best for your spouse and your children as I do. And there is plenty of earth, and the tools that come with it, to accomplish this. But first we must reach common ground. We must start on the local level first! For no movement of this magnitude needs support. First we must band together, Democrats and Republicans alike. We need to put away our differences and do what our parents told us to do with our brothers and sisters in our own home, we have to live together.

Look for many years I've posted many statements on this forum, and to tell you the truth I am tired of arguing. Its all wasted talk and nothing gets done. I have read page after page of people ranting on one issue to another. But no where, on this forum or others that I've visited, has people ever banned together and fight for a cause that will make people lives better.

Step back from politics and see what these arguments are doing to you and others. Do you want to raise your children in a divided nation? With a terrorist, Christian, Muslim, or Jew; your neighbor ready to take you or your families life simply because they disagree with you? I support Donald Trump, because he is taking a different approach to make us greater than what we are.

Know this I am not only writing this to you, who will probably try to dissect my posts and split the hairs of this post as you have done before, but I am addressing the entire body. When will you quit fighting for nonsense, and stop, look around you and accept each other for who they are. Each and everyone of us on this forum is intelligent, however, at the same time, we are being very foolish and stupid by arguing just to fight another. I come here to share ideas. I do it in many different ways, but it is useless to debate in an argument when your opponent is so conceited that they cannot see the forest for the trees. And I hope you are not one of those people, I hope you are intelligent, as I give you the benefit of the doubt. But that goes to all my friends out there as well as all my enemies as well as to you.

What are we doing? and entertainment is futal, I would rather go dancing and pick up a woman, and get turned down then waist my time and intelligence, on those who do not learn.

I will not be able to convince you of anything.
Likewise you will not be able to convince me of anything.
However somewhere in these conversations we may obtain wisdom.
And its this wisdom if used properly will make both of us better than we are now.
If enough debate, and enough time is passed with patience maybe we can change the country, by eliminating the great divide we now are engaged in.

So once again I ask, do we have a deal?

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

That's Was A Joke On Hillary's Future Geriatric Run
You're Not Real Bright Are You ??

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

you are a moron . period .. is that straight up enough............................period

flyboy48

Trump has not broken any law, but he has been accused of everything, including war crimes. It is time you liberals, in the odds of BO that ''We won'' so get over it and move on. Just as a word of warning, if you try to overthrow him or assassinate him you will have a civil war on your hands that you cannot win. Trump won by promising to do the peoples will and we back him 100% and are willing to fight for him as long as he does the right thing. He has done more in two months than BO did in eight years!! God bless President Trump and God bless America.

Big Bass

Obumbum is nothing but a Kenyan Gestapo-racist. His shame for his white half is a reason the U.S. has become so divided.

Glaucon

God bless Trump and all of you of his mindless, robotic authoritarian followers.

Glaucon

Bigass and witless, Twins?

son of witless

[quote=straightUp] " Well if you want to use the word in a rhetorical sense, that's fine, but the actual definition can be found in a dictionary.

1. n. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
2. n. One who holds or seeks a political office.
- American Heritage Dictionary

As far as I know... The POTUS is a political office and Trump did seek that office and he holds it now. So, according to the dictionary definition, that makes him a politician.
What's interesting is that there *is* a third definition in the American Heritiage Dictionary...

3. n. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering:

So, there's that negative connotation you seem to gravitate to. But I want to point out that even if you think Trump doesn't match the third definition he still *IS* a politician according to the first and second definitions. Also, if any of the suspicions that Trump was involved in scheming turn out to be true then of course the third definition would also be a match. None of these suspicions have been proven yet, so I won't make any accusations but he is the first president to come into office while under investigation for scheming. "

You make fine legal arguments. President Trump by running for office and winning is indeed a Politician. He fits the definition. Ranger 7374 more correctly should have said that President Donald J. Trump is not a Professional Politician.

Many of our Presidents used politics as a profession before becoming President. To Trump this is not his profession. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and even Obama can be called Professionals.

As far as Trump being the first incoming President to be under investigation, that is also technically true. However, since that investigation is purely political with zero evidence to date it is more a reflection on the state of American politics than a reflection on him.

son of witless

Speak for yourself, Greek. You say we who are right are delusional, yet whenever I ask you to prove or back up your delusions, you either degenerate into insults or you go dark. Obama was the one who slammed his own White Grandmother. His Black Father abandoned him yet he has delusions of how great his Black Father was.