Interested in people's beliefs about this word and it's meaning. We all know the definition, but as it is being bandied about so much these days, I'd like to know what your thoughts are...
It really depends on what specific actions we're talking about. Since actions mentioned in the article that spawned Trump's tweet aren't known, it's hard to say. But I generally believe treason involves helping an enemy of this country on purpose and not just disobeying the president. My money is on Trump just being his usual antagonistic attention-whoring self.
I don't even know anymore. It's being thrown around by both sides so much that it's approaching the race card.
Trump supporters define treason as working to oppose anything Trump wants or says. Whether that is good or bad for the country doesn't matter.
The writer of the NY Times article that described a concerted effort to protect the US by preventing Trump's most ridiculous efforts has been called a traitor by several trump supporters. That is unquestionably defining a traitor as someone who works against Trump to protect the country.
I consider treason to be anything that harms the interests and/or sovereignty of the United States in favor of a foreign foreign nation. So... Trump giving vital top secret intelligence to the Russians which threatened out relationship with sever middle eastern allies against ISIS. Trump publicly denouncing US agencies as liars and siding with Russia and proclaiming that Russia never interfered in the election.
If you are a senior aide in the White House or a cabinet member and you disagree with a policy of a President there are but two acceptable choices: be a team player and support the policy, or do the honorable thing and submit your resignation. I find it interesting that this anonymous leaker said there were policies that have made the country safer and helped improved the economy & jobs and yet he airs his personal complaints about Trump. If whoever it is doesn't resign, if identified, should be fired!
As far as I am aware, treason is legally very narrowly defined however the word is tossed around like confetti politically. Trump, who as president should know better, performs a great disservice when he throws the word "treason" out there as he did last night. He also stupidly told the NYT to hand over the author of the op-ed piece to the government for national security purposes, which is absurd. This shows his continued unbelievable ignorance, the danger he represents and his inability to act like an adult capable of rational behavior. In short, while I may disagree with the op-ed episode in how it came about, Trump's behavior actually justifies the message in the op-ed piece.
I, too, disagree with how this oped came about. But the contents are interesting. It wasn't a message simply bashing his/her employer - it was to reassure Americans that there are people close to the president who are working for the country. Whether or not it is true - time will tell.
So you think that if a cabinet member agrees with anything a president does, from there forward, he has to agree with everything his president says or does, even if it harms the country?
I said a policy! I seriously doubt every aide or cabinet member agrees with everything any president does! Let me be clear: if a policy, or actions of a president violates someones core principles, the honorable thing to do is to submit their resignation, instead of writing an anonymous letter to the NY Times, which I find be both dishonorable and cowardly! And by the way, I would say the same thing if this happened in a future democratic presidency! I am not a "hard core political partisan" when it come to being able to distinguish between what's good and what's bad! Of all the personal traits someone can posses, I value intellectual honesty above all else!
I agree that would be the proper thing to do if the president isn't crazy and subject to do the country great harm on a whim at any moment. In the extreme case we find ourselves in, obligation to country overrides any duty to support a spoiled child president.
By who's judgement is the writer using describe his definitions? Are we to blindly trust some anonymous staffer to judge what is best for America? Why should we bother with elections, when anonymous people are setting our policies? How can someone be appointed to obstruct the policies that the citizens voted for?
It's not one staffer, it's several, and examples of the crazy things he has been prevented from doing have been recently made public.
In another thread, I posted about how it is a dangerous thing that unelected individuals are making decisions about how to run the country. That the military is not following the direction of POTUS. Don't get me wrong - I do believe that DT is not fit for the presidency and I suppose I am grateful that there are 'adults in the room', but they weren't elected and it's dicey for me that they are taking it upon themselves to 'do the right thing'.
