Is the NYT op-ed Sedition and Treason

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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). 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.

Said by someone who has this whole time misrepresented what I said. Sorry, but I don't care what the dishonest say about honesty. He is betraying his country, it's core values, and the administration he pledged to serve.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

I haven't misrepresented what you said. You just don't know what you are talking about. You even admitted it in the thread when you couldn't site any laws that were broken. So the fact you are arguing with me still says that you care more about arguing for the sake of arguing than being right and arguing in good faith. NOW you are accusing me of misrepresenting your argument (never mind that I quoted literally your own words to show you were wrong).

He is betraying his country, it's core values, and the administration he pledged to serve.

NO. He isn't. AGAIN. NO one owes allegance to the President. NO ONE. Government employees work for the US citizenry and report to the Constitution. The President is just in charge, but he too reports to the Constitution and it is the patriotic duty of people under him to out the President if he isn't following along. There is literally judicial precedent for this. You REALLY need to go study civics and stop taking lessons on how the government is supposed to operate from Donald Trump. He doesn't know either.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

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

Are you going to re-argue a point you lost two pages ago?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

I haven't misrepresented what you said. You just don't know what you are talking about. You even admitted it in the thread when you couldn't site any laws that were broken. So the fact you are arguing with me still says that you care more about arguing for the sake of arguing than being right and arguing in good faith. NOW you are accusing me of misrepresenting your argument (never mind that I quoted literally your own words to show you were wrong).

He is betraying his country, it's core values, and the administration he pledged to serve.

NO. He isn't. AGAIN. NO one owes allegance to the President. NO ONE. Government employees work for the US citizenry and report to the Constitution. The President is just in charge, but he too reports to the Constitution and it is the patriotic duty of people under him to out the President if he isn't following along. There is literally judicial precedent for this. You REALLY need to go study civics and stop taking lessons on how the government is supposed to operate from Donald Trump. He doesn't know either.

Again, I never said any laws were broken. This is what I mean by misrepresentation. Your accusations are fake.

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

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

Are you going to re-argue a point you lost two pages ago?

Knocking down a strawman doesn't count as a win.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Again, I never said any laws were broken. This is what I mean by misrepresentation. Your accusations are fake.

Yes. You did. Treason is illegal. Playing with it or whatever you mean by that is no exception. You are either guilty of it or you aren't. And if you accuse someone of treason you are accusing them of breaking the law. AGAIN this is simple substitution logic. It isn't "misrepresenting your argument" to follow a logic chain to its conclusion.

And if you are going to suggest treason and not be serious about it then you are part of the problem of the ongoing propaganda to dilute the meaning and weight of the word. Something that is probably just as bad as erroneously accusing someone of treason without merit.

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

No. I'm defending the author of this article from your slanderous and untrue accusations of treason that are based on absolutely zero Constitutional basis.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

Not to butt into this exchange, but dude you are really pushing it now. Give up and move on.

Or admit you were wrong and get back to whatever point you were trying to make.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Knocking down a strawman doesn't count as a win.

A straw man is when you argue what the other's position is. I took your argument, in your words, and proved it wrong.

Stay down already...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes. You did. Treason is illegal. Playing with it or whatever you mean by that is no exception. You are either guilty of it or you aren't. And if you accuse someone of treason you are accusing them of breaking the law. AGAIN this is simple substitution logic. It isn't "misrepresenting your argument" to follow a logic chain to its conclusion.

I'm not going to re-clarify what I meant, simply because you are unwilling to understand it. Was I not clear enough? Sure, but You're attacking your strawmen, but completely swinging and missing on my arguments. Keep going.

No. I'm defending the author of this article from your slanderous and untrue accusations of treason that are based on absolutely zero Constitutional basis.

Of course, you disagree on that minor, quibbling point. You've been attacking that strawman for pages. But what about the rest?

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Knocking down a strawman doesn't count as a win.

A straw man is when you argue what the other's position is. I took your argument, in your words, and proved it wrong.

Stay down already...

I clarified and you dismissed it in bad faith. Not something to be proud of.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

You are defending an unnamed cabal of bureaucrats, who remain unelected by the people, unaccountable to the people simply because you credulously believe every word he says. Again, embarrassing.

Not to butt into this exchange, but dude you are really pushing it now. Give up and move on.

Or admit you were wrong and get back to whatever point you were trying to make.

I don't take advice from those who have not proven they can dispense with it. Why don't you move on?

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Ok. I'll accept that you just don't understand what it means to use the word "treason" against someone in a discussion.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip



Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Ok. I'll accept that you just don't understand what it means to use the word "treason" against someone in a discussion.

And I'll accept that you wont allow clarification, won't argue in good faith, and prefer your strawmen to real arguments.

originally posted by: JasonBillung

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?

I'm sorry, did you think you were clever?

I didn't bring anything up other then continueing the discussion in regards to Treason and Sedition, a natural by product of of removing a POTUS or official.

...and nowhere did I mention "unconstitutonal", those were YOUR words and natural reaction of leftist under the assumption that anything the Right tries to argue, you'll default to word play.

It doesn't work here and why would I answer a non question with no merit?

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Absolutely, provided it is true. Failing NYT may have concocted a story just to stay relevant in a time where MSM (especially print media) is failing.

If true, this represents a direct threat to the Republic and should be terminated with extreme prejudice. All US military/intelligence/law enforcement assets should be tasked with rooting out the unlawful subversive treasonous DEEPSTATE insiders and hanging them from the tallest tree in DC.

Yes, treason is an offense punishable by death and this is one limited instance I feel it is more than warranted. This doesn't just harm Trump, it harms every American and our Constitution. If the article is true, it means we're living under a tyranny and patriots are duty bound to act decisively.

Either way, it is important to follow the President's lead here. Whatever he commands/decides is best is A-OK with me. I'm on board with President Trump 100% and will support him in any way I possibly can.

We are winning. We will defeat the treasonous scum, provided the failing NYT is telling the truth.

a reply to: Arnie123

It is a typical leftist response Arnie, they don't have real rebuttals or intelligence counter-points...just obfuscation, deflection, distraction and when that doesn't work...screaming at the sky.

However, the left should be equally appalled at this seditious/treasonous DEEPSTATE shadow government. They have just as much of an interest in seeing its perpetrators brought to justice as the rest of us.

a reply to: JBurns

Yes, treason is an offense punishable by death and this is one limited instance I feel it is more than warranted. This doesn't just harm Trump, it harms every American and our Constitution. If the article is true, it means we're living under a tyranny and patriots are duty bound to act decisively.

Writing an OP-ED saying you and some others tried to stop certain policies while helping the agenda as a whole isn't treason.

Maybe if they did certain actions to stop the policies, they might be able to be hit with a fine-able offense and get fired. But they didn't say how they tried to stop him, may have just been that they all took a position and convinced Trump against some of his ideas.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Absolutely, provided it is true. Failing NYT may have concocted a story just to stay relevant in a time where MSM (especially print media) is failing.

If true, this represents a direct threat to the Republic and should be terminated with extreme prejudice. All US military/intelligence/law enforcement assets should be tasked with rooting out the unlawful subversive treasonous DEEPSTATE insiders and hanging them from the tallest tree in DC.

Um... We don't live in a dictatorship...

*Leans back in comfortable chair, drinks beer and eats pringles whilst grinning at some of the more unhinged comments*

Wow, the level of delusion is high in here. The Orange Emperor is being increasingly revealed for what he is - unstable, ignorant and out of his depth - but some people still think that it's all a plot against him?
Sheesh...