the definition of treason

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

lol, nuthin bout disbelieving the CIA

def 2, of course we've all done that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

I'd say the definition of treason is unapologetically voting for a democrat, or maybe somehow failing to criticize the US intelligence community 15-20 times a day.

The definition of treason is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The definition of treason is taking LSD seven times.

I'd say the definition of treason is unapologetically voting for a democrat, or maybe somehow failing to criticize the US intelligence community 15-20 times a day.

― Hi My father very Rusted Root with me what can I do? (Old Lunch), F

otm

it's what happens if treeship (hope he's doing ok these days) has a male child

nice strawmannin' OL

Unlike the pinpoint accuracy of "disbelieving the CIA."

Could it be that the legal definition of treason differs from the layperson's usage? Nah...

treason is actually "t'reason".

example: "t'reason I am breaking up with you is your teeth are yellow"

surprising amount of overlap between online leftists going "no evidence of collusion!!!" and the ones going "america sucks, we deserve to be hacked"

Enh I spend way too much time following the online left and see way more of the latter than the former

I think his point is that there is any overlap at all

really it's just that when you spend all your time playing the stereotype that red state fuckwits love to hate, i.e. blaming USA directly and indirectly for all the shit that's fucked up on Earth, you will eventually begin to adopt the corollary, that nothing bad that happens to the USA is anything more than the scales of justice being balanced.

I know, this is from a blog that hates everything Morbius loves (just kidding, I think they enjoy old movies) so take it with a BIG grain of salt, but I’m pretty sure Paul Campos is a real live law professor:

But this merely demonstrates how completely meaningless the narrowest technical definition of a crime is when one is making political judgments about what to do about politicians who are betraying their country to another nation in exchange for money and power, which is what not only Trump, but also the entire leadership of the Republican party, is doing at this moment. That is what ordinary people, as opposed to lawyers, mean by treason, and that’s what the word ought to mean in ordinary political debate, as opposed to inside a criminal court.

This isn’t merely a semantic point: contrary to Fred Kaplan’s implicit argument, an impeachable offense isn’t limited to a crime that can be proved to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt — indeed it’s not limited to crimes at all. Supreme Court precedent — for what that’s worth, which under current conditions may not be much — makes it perfectly clear that an impeachable offense is literally anything that a majority of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate consider an impeachable offense, and that the federal courts have no power to pass judgment on either the specific procedure used for, or the substantive outcome reached by, any impeachment proceeding.

"the point is that there is any overlap at all" - - ffs there is all sorts of insane overlap in all directions. The natural result of a fiercely atomized society. I'm a communist, but that doesn't mean I need to give a fuck about Stalin apologists.

Simon, I wasn’t trying to call you out FWIW. We find each other insufferable at times but I don’t think you believe that my country deserves what it’s going through, at all

I don't believe in "deserve".

(at the level of citizenry that is)

tre45on

but I would add: I don't blame anyone for wondering why this passes the threshold of being a treason-worthy affair when the Iraq war and the 08 crisis both went by with no meaningful consequences for anyone responsible. Call it whataboutism all you like, but it informs the current climate of skepticism.

that were just dumb americans fucking shit up on behalf of other dumb americans. this is a very, very stupid american fucking shit up on behalf of the fucking personified KGB.

In my opinion you're too focused on the players and not the effects. People can point to the 08 crisis and the Iraq war as things that materially affected themselves, their families, or (for leftists) the overall stability of the Middle East, not to mention the uncountable dead or displaced. Who feels. Russiagate? So far a statistically unrecordable number of Americans think it's the biggest problem the country faces, and honestly, what reason have they been given to?

(I am willing to concede that the parameters of the Gallup poll are flawed.)

I would also add as a final point that I truly am sympathetic to the David Klions of the world, earnest left-leaning writers who believe this is a big deal worth building on, but their central premise seems to be that this could serve as a launchpad for investigating and ousting global kleptocrats. I support that goal, but I don't envision (and frankly can't imagine) Democrats meaningfully leading the charge on that sort of global disinfection.

My problem with that Dave Klion thing is that it basically amounts to "Before I was skeptical of all the wild speculation, but now that thing I can't explain happened, I feel free to speculate wildly as well"

We know Russia engaged in a campaign to influence the election, primarily a propaganda and dirty tricks campaign. This is bad, but take Russia out of it and it's the same shit US political operatives do every election afaict. We know Trump rejects the evidence. We also know he's a raging narcissist who behaves in an often erratic and incoherent way. We also know he seems to admire strongmen leaders. We also know there are often contradictions between his words and attitudes toward foreign leaders and his actions.

In this context, we get Trump's weird performance in Helsinki. Did it seem weird and overly fawning toward Putin? Yes. What does that mean? How the fuck can any of us know right now? But once you open the floodgates, the kompromat is clearly there, and everything Trump is doing is clearly to benefit Russia, and it's all a master plan, and even his body language is evidence, and did you know a lot of Russian people buy apartments in his towers? etc.

This is bad, but take Russia out of it and it's the same shit US political operatives do every election afaict

This is categorically true, and while the "we do it all the time so why should I give a shit when the tables turn" take is the wrong one (imo we should care about all subversions of democracy) I can't exactly blame people for finding this to be an inconsistent source of concern among american liberals

"We do this also" is an extremely bad take. So basically I should be ok with people interfering in our elections because karma due to something my govt did that I don't approve of?

what I meant however is that US political operatives do it in US elections

i.e. there's always a lot of propaganda, misinformation and dirty tricks in elections, and that's not ok but I also don't believe the Russian version of it abnormally tipped the scales just because it came from Russia instead of here

it didn't just come from Russia alone, it also resulted in a partnership between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Isn't the evidence still a little thin to be able to say "a partnership between Russia and the Trump campaign?"

yes. but it didn't stop me from saying it.

Characterizing the Russian ratfucking in 2016 as even being in the same category as normal election year shenanigans that we regularly inflict on ourselves is an impressive display of ignorance of what’s been reported on in multiple venues for over a year now

Isn't the evidence still a little thin to be able to say "a partnership between Russia and the Trump campaign?"

This is categorically true, and while the "we do it all the time so why should I give a shit when the tables turn" take is the wrong one (imo we should care about all subversions of democracy) I can't exactly blame people for finding this to be an inconsistent source of concern among american liberals

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.)

i understand the principle that subverting other countries' governments is bad, but i can't subscribe to the moralistic idealism that denies us the right to be outraged when it's done to us.

if i can try to pinpoint my outrage, it's not that putin is subverting american government to his own ends - there's no feeling of "how dare he" or anything like that. the outrage is more of a... i know i bring up this historical analogy at least once a month, but the feeling is not dissimilar to what i imagine the global left must have felt in the wake of the molotov-von ribbentrop pact. it's not just the lack of principle, it's the utterly galling stupidity and incompetence involved in such a maneuver.

i mean, in weimar the center-left governed pretty much entirely in a directly anti-democratic fashion using emergency powers. would you say that they had no grounds to be outraged about hitler's usurpation of power?

how did we get from "I think people exhibit inconsistent morals and it's fair to be weirded out by it" to "oh so you'd have been a nazi apologist huh?" so fast

yeah, why _do_ people keep bringing up hitler when we're just trying to have a nice reasonable conversation about donald trump?

The partnership between Russia and Trump is skewed a little in one side's favor...

i understand wanting to address global hypocrisy and injustice, but the more i think about it the more i am convinced that attempting to address these issues in this context is pure whataboutism. it's not really any different from responding to a cop shooting down an innocent black kid in the street by bringing up all the times cops have been killed in the line of duty.

That is a comprehensively horrible analogy.

I can't even follow what the two of you are supposed to be debating about, if I'm being honest.

That's a good sign I should peace out

The partnership between Russia and Trump is skewed a little in one side's favor...

― Et Dieu crea l' (Michael White)

stalin's trust of hitler was pretty much precisely as idiotic as trump's trust of putin

In my opinion you're too focused on the players and not the effects. People can point to the 08 crisis and the Iraq war as things that materially affected themselves, their families, or (for leftists) the overall stability of the Middle East, not to mention the uncountable dead or displaced. Who feels. Russiagate? So far a statistically unrecordable number of Americans think it's the biggest problem the country faces, and honestly, what reason have they been given to?

this wasn't directed at me, but i think this gets it exactly backward. "treason", to get back to OP, is not about the effects. it's about the intent of the actors. a person who tried and failed to burn a church down intended to commit arson. a person who accidentally burns their house down is not an arsonist.

as for the second part, i don't think it's a good idea to let the collective ignorant will of americans serve as the arbitrator as to whether or not something is a real problem or not. see: climate change, evolution, science in general, abortion, etc

A big piece of the puzzle and source of outrage is the sense that collaborating with Russians didn't just help to usher in a uniquely bad administration that continues to push a Russia-friendly agenda, but that it represents a major step along the path to cementing permanent political power in the hands of a hateful minority.

In other words, it's quite likely that a majority of Americans increasingly feel like they are being held hostage by a political apparatus that has slipped out of their control. If you consider democracy, majority rules, and one person, one vote to be core American ideals, then it is easy to see the direction of politics under Trump and the GOP as ever more anti-American.

Correct

my personal feeling on this is that the events of the last week have given me a strong impression that the president is not accountable to the american people and that the president is accountable to vladimir putin. i do consider this to be effectively treason. this also makes it very difficult for me to think of the government of the united states as fundamentally legitimate.

The US government is bigger than the incumbent President (which drives his supporters nuts)

yes certainly and most people who are working for the government i feel bad for because they're in a very difficult position - impossible position, honestly. this is a question a lot of us, inside and outside the government, have to face on a nearly daily basis - the president and/or his people are attempting to implement a policy which is grossly unethical, profoundly stupid, and probably impossible to carry out in practice. it's also something he can legally demand and something we need to legally comply with. what does one do in a case like that?

just ask yourself WWVAD (what would vasili arkhipov do)