A question : what is Europe to you? As an American.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Treason?
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Why? What does that have to do with someone looking at the fanatics in a religion and saying the whole religion is that, and then having someone online say they are a traitor for not condemning an entire religion because of the actions of fanatics?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
How is Trump doing this?
PureX
Veteran Member
What it means is that another country has deliberately attempted, and succeeded in sabotaging our national presidential election, turned it to their own advantage, and to our DISTINCT AND SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE by installing a president that apparently has no concern whatever for the integrity of our electoral process, our judicial system, our constitution, or our national defense agencies, and that completely disregards the whole 'attack' because he 'likes" the dictator responsible and because he has personally gotten a lot of money from the dictator's banks.
It was a attack on our democratic electoral process by a foreign power, with intent to do us serious harm. AND IT SUCCEEDED. AND our own president is siding with the attacker, against our own security institutions. This is not politics as usual. This is not politics at all. This is TREASONOUS behavior on the part of our own president!
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Unpopular opinion here, but treason is as real a thing as blasphemy...
Audie
Veteran Member
That is clearly your opinion.
"Treason" in the U.S. Constitution is defined as "levying war against 'them' (the states of the US), or in adhering to them, giving them aid and comfort".
Today a person told me that Trump has done nothing that can be used as treasonous (as defined by the Constitution, Not by the reporting mass media).
He added that well known Harvard Professor-of-Law Alan Dershowitz is on record defending Trump in this regard as well.
Interesting to me that Jesus was charged with 'treason, sedition and injured majesty'. None of which I find that to be true of Jesus, yet people thought Jesus was willing to sell out his own country, etc.
With all due respect, I think you're exaggerating the effect of what they actually did, even if we're assuming that all of the stated allegations are true (and they still have yet to be proven in court - "innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt").
They didn't "install a president." For right or wrong, the American voters made their choice. You can claim that they were unduly influenced by propaganda and duped by Russian trolls on social media, but even if true, it wouldn't be the first time voters had been tricked into voting for someone. As far as I can tell, it's happened during every election in my lifetime. Even foreign powers get involved in it.
Since the advent of the internet, I've noticed quite a number of non-US citizens posting on US sites and commenting on US politics, attempting to influence the views of American voters. There are countless foreigners working in the news media, the entertainment industry, academia - all with enormous influence over American thought and culture. I believe we're a free and open society, and we can handle the opinions and thoughts of people from other lands. We should welcome that. If we don't like what they have to say, then we can reject what they say.
But if the American voters got duped, no matter if they're duped by a foreign power or by a domestic political faction, then shame on the American voters. I say this at every election, actually.
This is strictly an American problem - a problem with our own domestic politics. What the Russians did (if the allegations are true) are things that anyone could have done - and I think it's naive to believe that this sort of thing hasn't happened before. We have a system that's vulnerable to these kinds of shenanigans, but the trouble is that the voters lap it all up like milk served to kittens.
Our system is what it is. Our security agencies, the judicial system, national defense agencies, etc. - all these people that you believe we should trust - they're the ones responsible for the system. They've benefited quite nicely from it for all these decades, but there are those who see them as a major part of the problem in America today. Just because someone disagrees with their skewed assessments does not, in and of itself, constitute treason.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, the voters chose Hillary Clinton. She had the most citizen's votes cast for her. But in the U.S., the citizens votes do not elect the president, an electoral college does. And they don't have to follow the will of the citizens. In fact, they are mandated to treat some citizen's votes as being less influential as other citizen's votes depending on where they voted. And in some states they don't have to follow the popular vote at all. They can simply choose whomever they want to regardless of how their own citizens voted.
We depend on information from external sources to decide who to vote for because we will never actually meet or interact with any of the candidates. So if one wants to control the outcome of an election, all they have to do is control the information people are getting about the candidates. Or, they can simply rig the voting system to favor their own candidates. And the way they do both of these is with lots of money. Money buys media coverage, travel, advertising, and everything else a candidate MUST do to win an election. Control the money, you control the election.
And this is what foreign governments have been doing, and continue to do in U.S. elections for quite some time, now. They pay a lot of money to support the elections of candidates that they believe will do their bidding once elected. Israel has been buying U.S. politicians for years. Russia has bought Donald Rump through hundreds of millions in bank loans and all sorts of business 'kick-backs'.
There is no longer any possibility of not getting "duped". The whole system is corrupted, and rigged. The only way the people have any influence at all is if they vote overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate. But the politicians and the media are working very hard to see to it that this doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Treason is mentioned in the Constitutions because the founding fathers wanted to limit people accusing other people of treason for political gains. It's practically impossible to convict someone of treason. But it makes really good sound bites and entertainment. You have to realize TV news is not news. TV news is entertainment designed to cause the viewer the greatest amount of anger and outrage. Once the viewer is livid with anger, ratings go up. Ratings equals more money. Everything in TV is about making money. There is no news. There's only stories for creating good ratings.
True and I'm not happy that the USA has sometimes done the wrong thing even for what seemed at the time like a good reason (opposing even worse dictators who threatened other nations). The difference to me is motive.
Yes, of course. That's not what I was arguing, but surely, you're not blaming the Russians for the fact that we have an Electoral College? Right or wrong, that's how our system works, as designed by America's Founders. If the people wanted to do away with the Electoral College, then there are provisions for amending the Constitution, as we've done many times before.
I'm not arguing who won the popular vote (and the difference wasn't really that much), but the thing is, Trump had enough votes in key states to win the election. This includes key Rust Belt states which Hillary might have won if the Democrats had emphasized basic economics rather than their elitist agenda. Again, this had nothing to do with the Russians and everything to do with the fact that the Democrats sold out to Wall Street decades ago.
The Democrats can go on blaming the Russians all they want, but really, it's their own damn fault. They've been out of touch, and they took their traditional voting base for granted. That's how they ended up losing, but the fact that they keep harping on and on and on about the Russians clearly shows that they haven't learned from their mistakes.
Then that would be laid at the feet at those organizations which propagate and disseminate information. A lot of people bring up Fox News and right-wing radio talk shows, but they're not Russians either.
But it's not just information about the candidates which is in play here; it's also about how the voters' ideals and values are influenced. Such influences can come from a variety of sources, including the entertainment media and the overall cultural milieu which can affect perceptions and influence thought.
In any case, there's no way information can really be all that "controlled," since there is still a First Amendment, a free press, and freedom of speech. Much was made about social media and the blogosphere, but anyone can participate and post in those forums from anywhere in the world. That's what the pundits and elitists are truly worried about, because it means that they're losing control of the flow of information. They want that control back.
It was far different back in the pre-internet days when people only had their local network affiliates and local newspapers to get information. It was much easier to influence public opinion that way, but now, it's a whole new ball game.
Yes, that's nothing new either. The system is largely rigged through the primaries and other such processes for selecting candidates. As Boss Tweed put it "I don't care who does the electing; I just want to do the nominating."
But I haven't heard any accusations that the Russians had anything to do with selecting the GOP candidate. And Hillary's nomination as a kind of "legacy" candidate was already agreed upon even before the primaries (which is why they got so rattled about Bernie who was ostensibly screwing up their game).
Yes, this is a given. But this is the system we wanted; the voters respond to it, and many (if not most) people still believe that "the system works." Politicians from both parties have certainly benefited from all the money being used to gain their favor, so they love this system as well (even despite as much lip service they pay regarding "clean elections").
This is the system we wanted and continue to support. If the people don't like it, then it's up to the people to change it. If they're unwilling or unable to do that, then we really have no room to complain about the consequences when they come back to bite us.
Yes, foreign governments and other entities have money, too. There is a visible foreign presence in the media as well - both news and entertainment media, as well as in academia. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but just noting its existence in the current context.
There are those who still blame British propaganda for the US entry into WW1. I'm not sure if that's true or just some sort of conspiracy theory, but I suppose anything is possible.
Trump was already rich, unlike the Clintons or Obama who started out as paupers (yet are now millionaires many times over). I don't see that Trump would necessarily be "for sale." My impression is that Trump's entire candidacy was probably a challenge to himself to see if he could do it (perhaps for reasons of ego, which might explain the narcissism). Just like that tycoon who wanted to build a hot air balloon capable of going completely around the world. More like a pet project or a "labor of love" - not necessarily an enterprise to gain further profit.
Granted, US politics wasn't really supposed to work like this. It wasn't designed to be turned into some rich dude's personal playpen, but on the other hand, that's what it's become largely because that's what the voters have accepted all along.
But all in all, I can't say that it's really that much worse than anything else we've had to deal with. I honestly don't know if there was any collusion between Trump and the Russians, and as far as Russian hacking goes, that's a matter of espionage, counter-espionage, and the other activities of our so-called "intelligence" agencies. Yes, the Russians are spying on us - film at 11! Lots of countries are undoubtedly spying on us, and frankly, we're spying on them, too. Is this some great revelation? Is this something that no one knew about before?
And yes, money buys politics, too. It can certainly buy media as well. I suppose the assumption is that since the same tools are available to both parties to use as they see fit, it's still seen as a "fair fight." The Democrats had a lot of money, too.
I agree that the system is corrupted, but a large part of it also has to do with how the voters tend to follow the same familiar patterns when making their choices.
Some of what I see also tends to be outside of the control of the system and seems more cultural and regional. For example, someone raised in a certain part of the country which is more religious and would have a more religious, Bible-Belt oriented view of things would likely gravitate towards candidates along those lines. Political candidates speaking to that audience and overall demographic will know the right things to say and what they want to hear. They may be (and probably are) just as corrupt as anyone, but as long as they're willing to play ball with the power brokers, then they'll get good press and the people will like them.
It would be similar for liberal candidates appealing to more liberal constituencies and paying lip service to their causes and telling them what they want to hear - yet they're probably just as corrupt as well. But they know how to pander and how to work a crowd.
Some apologists might defend it as "working within the system," acknowledging its flaws and deficiencies, yet still believing that they can accomplish some good things along the way. (Of course, working outside the system and/or attacking the system is viewed by some as "treasonous.")
But a lot of it still rests within the way public opinion is formulated, influenced, and manipulated. It doesn't all rest with the media or the politicians - as they're probably more opportunists than anything else. It also has to do with how people are educated, what they're raised to believe in, and other such factors which can come from a variety of sources and influences.
For example, there's a certain peer pressure to be patriotic for America, and one who knows this, knows how to use that in their rhetoric to manipulate the audience. It's being used to rile up the public with ideas of "foreign influence" and using latent Cold War perceptions of Russia being an "evil empire." So, we're being told that the "patriotic" stance should be to support and defend our system against foreign interlopers. To not do that is seen as "treasonous," as we're seeing in the fallout from all this.
I recall that back in the "golden age of television," the major networks pushed for their news departments to strive for objectivity and accuracy - even if it meant running at a loss. The networks depended on their entertainment programming to make up for whatever losses were being incurred by the news divisions. There seemed to be this idea that telling the truth was more important than making money.
I'm not sure they were really quite so noble as that, but when TV first came on the scene, it was seen as having an enormous influence over the public, and was a factor in the growth of the civil rights and anti-war movements which dominated the era. And some people didn't like what they saw on TV. I remember when they called CBS the "Communist Broadcasting System." But they also raked in quite a bit of money (and continue to do so), so they are/were very much capitalists.
I don't even watch that much TV, although it seems that the major networks are facing a lot more competition than they used to back in the "golden age." A lot of different channels and viewing options, not to mention all the videos and news content all over the internet. Of course, some of it might be "fake news," but it's buyer beware out there. A lot of people ostensibly do it not to make any money, but because they have some special "message" they want to get out to the public.
People also have a short attention span and little patience for anything deemed "boring." I imagine it's a pretty tough business, to entertain the public and keep their attention. So, I can see where the news media might feel pressure to keep up with that. Part of the product they're "selling" is their integrity, accuracy, and objectivity, but there's still the question of whether the public really wants that or are able to recognize it when they see it (or don't see it).