I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?
The definition of treason is very clear and very narrowly defined in the COTUS, and this does not meet the definition.
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
103 points (93.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35704 readers
3188 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Article III, Section 3. The definition states:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Calling for civil war and aiding an authoritarian country such as Russia, which is well known for being a long-time enemy and wants nothing more than the fall and decadence of the US, raises the question: if what Trump is doing is not treason, according to the Constitution, then I don’t know what is.
You really can't think of anything more obviously a case of treason than what you believe trump has done?
The guy is loyal only to himself, no doubt. But, I don't even see how it would fit this definition at all, and I can easily come up with many things more obviously a violation. Also keep in mind that Russia is not an enemy; we are not at war with them. They are an adversary.
Trump won the popular vote, trying to suppress him from running is akin to suppressing democracy.
If we (or 51% of voters) want to be fucked in the ass, then there should be no law that prevents it. As a country we have just voted for continuous fucking ass rape for the next 4 years.
I don’t accept the argument that as long as 51% of people vote for something, it should be good to go. We have a constitution, you realize, and you need more than that to change it. Is the constitution suppressing democracy? You’re talking about a kindergartener’s view of “majority rule,” not American democracy. And thank goodness, because I heartily believe that 51% of people would vote for some ghoulish shit, like boiling immigrant children in oil. And there you’d be, shrugging and saying “ahem - 51%, people.”
Go off and think it through a little better. I’ll be here when you get back.
Biden appointed a conservative Attorney General who refused to investigate Trump for two and a half years. Biden and his conservative AG (Merrick Garland) allowed Trump to get away with everything. So, here we are.
Neoliberals are conservatives. Always have been.
The Supreme Court has the power to say anything against it but 6 of the justices are down bad for it. And at least one of them are being paid specifically NOT to say anything about it
rules don't matter if no one enforces them. republicans have been consolidating power for decades, partly by never holding their own accountable. dems are always held accountable, but usually for things that either don't matter or are entirely false.
Trump isn't held accountable because his supporters control every institution that can, and they want him to be king of america.
He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years. He was impeached, but not convicted. Accused of insurrection, but the wheels of justice turned too slowly.
That's the extent of the legal requirements to be eligible to be President. The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.
That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.
Out of curiosity, can a judge temporarily strip someone from their election/vote right as part/alternative to a sentence ? It's a relatively common sentence for French politicians found guilty of corruptions (Which save the cost of keeping them in prison and limit their ability to re-offend) but no idea whether it's universal or unique
The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.
That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.
That could be a slippery slope too. Imagine a constitutional amendment making someone ineligible because of a "social disqualification" such as sexual orientation.
In what way would barring felons lead to barring gays? People use the words “slippery slope” to make their point, even though it’s literally the name of a logical fallacy. You have to show HOW one will lead to the next, not just say “a little might lead more!” That, exactly, is the fallacy. Textbook.
Calm down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I'm saying social disqualification being a vague notion could lead to easier abuse by the political power to shut down opposition.
I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote- anything to prevent this legally would be undemocratic. You'll need to change social attitudes or maybe put up a better candidate/run a better campaign in opposition.
I don't disagree, but winning popular vote doesn't always matter
I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote
That means that most USians are appalling people.
As a Latin-American suffering for decades the consequences of US foreign policies, I'm not surprised.
Gonna have to second this. We decided that, despite everything, none of it was a dealbreaker.
It's definitely tough to accept that 72 million Americans made that choice, and even more than that didn't even give enough of a shit to turn up to vote.
It's disappointing and embarrassing.
Cunts watched him insult the parents of slain soldiers, mock someone's disability and everything else, and still voted for him multiple times.
Fuck your country.
I mean making someone ineligible to be president for as long as he is under investigation for insurrection, treason or other crimes against the United States sounds pretty straightforward.
He could always wait and get back into it the next cycle if the investigation gets dropped or if he's proven innocent.
It sounds straightforward until it's used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.
You know, because every president commits a little light treason here and there! Same as speeding in a car. It's not that big of deal /s
load more comments
(6 replies)
As if a queer president could get elected these days
In the end worrying about this hypothetical is what made the situation actually life-threatening to queer people
It's simply a nazi infestation.
And then this weird limp dickness in the Democrats that compromising and doing nothing is the cure for cancer.
Vast numbers of people maliciously paused their duties in a thousand ways to let him through. They installed him, is how he got eligible. Because you're absolutely right, he was and still is ineligible in a thousand ways.
And then the cockroaches came out of the walls.
Bush crimes against humanity didn't prevent him from being eligible to a second term
Because his voters didn't consider the victims human in the first place.
he hasn't been charged/convicted of any of the relevant felonies that would preclude service, and nobody is going to make an issue of it; simply because all three branches of government are now under christofascist control. any lawsuits will go to SCROTUS, where they'll just rubber stamp a decision and cite some bullshit.
also the 14th gives enforcement to congress, which won't do anything either.
The question I have is why are felony convictions not considered a disqualification for president but they disqualify everyone else from literally almost any job? I knew someone who got a conviction and was hired by chik fil a then later told whoops we missed that on your application sorry can't hire you.
So you can't weaponize the courts against your political opponents.
I do not buy this one bit. I accept that it's given as a rationale but the only result of it is leaders being above the law and being held to a lower standard than anyone else.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
But why? Why are all these people so happy to protect such a despicable human being who will happily throw any of them under the bus and who has, and will again, sell out their country to anyone who says nice stuff to him and gives him money? It's absolutely extraordinary.
And it's not like it's a secret. His corruption is there out in the open for all to see. We all see it, we all know it. And yet here we are.
My mental wellbeing has taken a major hit this last day seeing how so many people would rather burn down our future than vote for a competent black woman.
They have been setting the pieces to this eventuality for 60+ years.
Trump just stumbled onto the very carefully set board, and started messing with it, and exposing the plans in the process. Being the narcissist he is, he is incapable of not using anything he wants, so it forced the Republican establishment's hand. They had to bring him into since the Presidency is necessary to further the plan, and in turn he also became dangerous since he's 100% the type of person to use that information to extort the outcome that helps him. I don't think they really understood how bad an idea that was at the times and now they're stuck.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I don't think it's democratic to ban people with a criminal record from voting or running. If the people want to vote someone like that in, then who's to stop them
The fact that Jan 6 wasn't the tipping point still boggles the mind.
It also means that your opponent can't stop you from running by prosecuting you like it happens in countries like Russia.
We have laws and legal procedures for due process and we presume innocence until proven guilty.
view more: next ›