Very well. But why? They are guests in a country that p***es itself on freedom of speech and they are sharing opinions which you are in complete agreement with?

(if you’re a democrat substitute “2017” for “2015” and “Trump” for “Obama”)

It’s the summer of 2015 and your attending a small party at a friend of a friend’s place, chatting with group of people who are foreign nationals from Turkey. At one point the conversation turns to Obama and they begin criticizing him for all of the despicable reasons and actions you despise him for. Do you;

1. Join in the conversation sharing with kindred spirits all the supporting evidence about what a reprehensible and dangerous criminal he is.
2. Rip them a new A**hole for how their President Erdogan's maniacal r****t and f*****t policies has brought their country to the brink or chaos.
3. Quietly excuse yourself from the conversation.
4. Or What?

It has been impossible to charge any citizen with Treason since 1945. Treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution and requires a legal declaration of war by the congress before it can be invoked.

And no doubt Obama's base would stick with him if the situation were reversed?. Actually I am not that cynical about the American public be they democrat or republican. I v**ed for Trump but if the evidence were as conclusive as you laid out in your imaginary scenerio I would want him impeached. I v**ed for Nixon and had he not left office I supported him being impeached. I did not v**e for Clinton but did not support him being impeached cause he fibbed about getting a BJ. There but for the grace of god go I........I openly admit I couldn't live with myself if I was that big of a hypocrite. Only talking about me here, no indictment of anyone else meant or intended.

I wonder if those are the same polls that had Hillary wining over Trump 47% to 41% on e******n day. I'm not sayin I'm just sayin.

The policy is a hard to read and even harder to handicap----so many angles and nuances . Is it a good gambit or a foolish risk. I lean to its a bad idea but for the most part I have to admit the final analysis is above my pay grade. The response from our political parties however has been more entertaining than a lost episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus. This move on tariffs fits the Democratic Party and there constituents like a gift from heaven. They should be all over it like white to rice, modifying it and taking credit. A move designed to protect traditional US industries and keep jobs home? A move that will raise the prices of those commodities, increase US production and allow for increased blue collar employment and wage increases? Are you kidding me? They should be on their knees thanking dumb luck. Instead they are out republicaning the republicans, sounding like the bastions of Friedman economics. I would expect republicans to turn a cold shoulder to the idea, they're whimpering around like lost puppies, They don't have a clue how to tackle this hot potato. But the democrats? They are so obsessed with Trump, I swear to God If Trump were to say r****m was abhorrent and we need to open our southern boarder with Mexico, the democrat's would fill the airwaves of CNBC and CNN with endless diatribes about Trump's despicable Zeno-phobic euro-r****t attitudes toward our beloved Canuck brethren. This one is a 5 star comedy for sure!

I cant follow or add anything to these claims and counter claims about who was the more despicable and nefarious criminal; Obama or Trump. But I can add this; Since 1945 it has been legally impossible to charge any US citizen with treason. The charge of treason is narrowly defined and requires the US to be in an officially declared war. The last time the Congress issued a declaration of war was on December 8th, 1941. Any discussions concerning treason after the end of WWII are Moot.

ARTICLE THREE SECTION THREE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.

You raise an excellent point Kevyn, but I have to clear out some of the partisan rhetoric that obscures the good point you raised. Speculation on whether Ford or Gore would have been president has no currency concerning your point. The republicans had a bitter hatred of Clinton that was mirrored by the Dem's bitter hatred of Bush which the republicans mirrored in there a bitter hatred of Obama which is mirrored by democrats bitter hatred of Trump. And what is the result? Stupid, useless and pointless attacks of character rather than legitimate discussion our leaders policies and the goals they support. Dear god when will it end?

“Honorable” Obama? In popularity polls Obama comes in at 12 (Time, Cspan). The center left leaning Brooking Institute rates him 18 behind George Hebert Walker Bush (17). The Centrist Pew Research Center rates him even lower. Sorry Kevyn, but “Most Americans” and "one of the most honorable" appears to be a partisan over reach from what I can find.

So now as to the excellent point you surface; I will put my stake in the sand with this; The constitution doesn’t expressly forbid bringing criminal charges against a sitting President but I think the risk of abuse in allowing that far out-weighs any advantages. And there is nothing preventing a sitting president from pardoning him or herself. Can you imagine a convicted President, self pardoned finishing out their term? Oh boy. The first course of action should be impeachment by the house (much less stringent evidence required) and trial but senate. If convicted he or she is immediately removed from office. If removed, should we prosecute the former President? Depends on the Crime. If the crime is Treason or something close, (like getting a BJ and then fibbing about it?) then “Yes”, along with the death penalty. If the crime is something less severe, I say “No”. Why? Too distracting, too d******e, too polarizing, will d**g on too long and leaves too many possibilities for cries of partiality that can lead to redemption. Consider: Nixon was utterly disgraced and remained pariah and outcast till the day he died. He had no possibility of redemption because the claim of partisan politics or perceived unfairness had no merit in the absence of a trial. Everyone to this day believes he got better than he deserved. His pardon was in many ways the worse punishment this nation could sentence him to. For the record, in 2014 Woodward called Ford’s Pardon an act of courage. In 2011 Bernstein called the pardon an act of great courage. In 2001 Ted Kennedy said that while he initially opposed the pardon, he had come to accept it as the best move for the country. So that's my 2 cents and I am looking forward to other takes on the matter.

JimMe just to clarify. Do you believe a business owner has a constitutional right to turn away customers based on their own beliefs and “Their” in this context is ambiquous - By “their” do you mean the business owner or the customer?

And with that you have struck at the heart of the matter. How can we have a reasonable dialog about firearms when there is a nagging suspicion that every concession is a move to eliminate gun ownership through stealthy incremental gains. It there any proof that this or that new restriction will actually make us Safer. Can anyone cite research saying that raising the gun ownership age to 21 will help or is it “Just Common Sense”? BTW does that “just common sense” apply to those same individuals that join the armed forces? Consider this little bit of quackery the left has introduced: “Gun Violence”. I have never met a violent gun; most seem rather mundane and taciturn. So now we don’t want to eliminate murder just a murder involving a gun? Is an accident involving a gun considered “gun violence”? Is suicide involving a gun, “gun violence”? The states that have passed assisted suicide measures also have restrictive gun laws so are we to assume you can k**l yourself there as long as it’s not with a gun? The left always is pointing out that “gun violence” is almost non-existent in Europe. True, because Europe has very restrictive gun laws, oh but the murder rate there is about the same as it is in the U.S. for caucasians i.e 1.6 per 100,000 which is identical to that of France and Finland. They just use rocks or knives or poison or hand grenades or something else to k**l each other. Our rates in the U.S. are skewered by the black population, which has a murder rate of 11.5 per 100,000 most by illegal guns. Want to solve that violence then legalize all forms of drugs like Spain did and there won’t be any turf wars. But as long as the airwaves push propaganda like “Gun Violence” at us then beware. Its like I mentioned above about redefinitions. The left has moved the discussion away from violence to violence involving guns. It’s not the same discussion and as demonstrated in Europe removing guns does not directly equate to stopping violence. Many on the left are just philosophically opposed to firearm ownership, which is fine. But when will they learn that then ends do not justify the means. If fact they often result in catastrophes never imagined.

Final point to my own laborious point. If we add more gun control laws, doing it to make progressives feel good is not REASONABLE. AND I am very aware of these laws being used as a starting point for even tighter and useless restrictions

Eagleye13, It scares the bloody hell out of me!!

I want to go on record as being second amendment supporter and gun owner. That being said the Supreme Court confirmed when they incorporated the second amendment as an individual right that it was acceptable to regulate firearms including confiscation from individuals who possessed them illegally. The reference to Hitler’s Germany as concerns gun control is disingenuous and counterfactual. In the pre-Hitler Weimar Government German citizens had no right to bear arms and gun laws were very strict. When Hitler came to power he legally loosened the gun laws for N**i party members and tightened it for Jews and other out of favor groups. In the U.S. individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms that is protected by the second amendment. A revolution overturning our government would have to occur before our arms could be legally confiscated on such a broad and insidious basis. It is instructive to note that Hitler operated with in the limits of the law in his actions. In the U.S. such an action would not be legally possible.

The Hitler’s Germany example doesn’t serve as a cautionary tale concerning gun control, but rather underscores how different we are from historical Germany because we have the Second Amendment and all of the other individual rights enumerated in the bill of rights to control the behaviors of our elected officials. The importance of protecting those rights from the actions of activist judges far exceeds any threat that REASONIBLE restriction or regulation of firearms could potentially pose

You make a very valid point when it comes to describing politics, however it is not one I am yet willing to concede. Why? I am s**k of the way progressive (not liberal ☺) academia has been to my mind insidiously redefining words to their advantage. Liberal has a very positive connotation when viewed in its original definitions. A liberal education is very desirable and one most conservatives would support. The education going on at the “Liberal” colleges most “non classical liberals” support is anything but a Liberal education. Polarization of opinions, discrediting alternative views not supporting the “approved” Dogma, pushing the doctrine of critical race theory as if it is a fact instead of an extremist opinion. He who controls the language and definitions controls the debate. If to believe in exploring all Ideas with an open mind is defined as a right wing extremist and believing in traditional values of hard work, personal responsibility and equal opportunity is a demonstration of implicit r****m (as is constantly reinforced in the media) then the debate is already over. So forgive me but the stakes are too high for me to yield the word and the definition. I as a republican I am a liberal conservative and most democrats I know are progressive socialists. I take the lead in defining them instead of the other way around. I am a liberal because I believe in equal opportunity instead of e******y of outcome. To the progressives that makes me a r****t and them liberal. NO! I am liberal and they are Marxists. Define them that way and watch them squirm. They don't want to be exposed. Except for Bernie who I disagree with, but can admire for his honesty.

Ha! Well it seems that you got most of them covered here with just a few execptions. So based on whose left it must be the progressives in cahoots with the liberals, socialists, c*******ts and g*******ts that are backing the movement to force the republican democrats with a decidedly conservative bent to disarm the docile heavily taxed Marxist American Public. One can only pray there is no outside intervention by the Sandinista's or worse yet the Trotskyites teamed up with the downtrodden but utopian Mensheviks - all praise to Allah?.