HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Would You Call THIS Treas...

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:13 AM

Would You Call THIS Treason?

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

:large
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/632765960069337

170 replies, 13223 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 170 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would You Call THIS Treason? (Original post)
kpete Nov 2015 OP
CanSocDem Nov 2015 #1
lsewpershad Nov 2015 #32
world wide wally Nov 2015 #50
daleanime Nov 2015 #2
leveymg Nov 2015 #3
haikugal Nov 2015 #4
cantbeserious Nov 2015 #6
leveymg Nov 2015 #51
CrispyQ Nov 2015 #14
leveymg Nov 2015 #22
2naSalit Nov 2015 #24
mountain grammy Nov 2015 #29
arendt Nov 2015 #36
MisterP Nov 2015 #39
truedelphi Nov 2015 #114
SusanaMontana41 Nov 2015 #115
fredamae Nov 2015 #5
2naSalit Nov 2015 #25
GGJohn Nov 2015 #7
demwing Nov 2015 #26
lastlib Nov 2015 #40
GGJohn Nov 2015 #90
Octafish Nov 2015 #48
hack89 Nov 2015 #54
malthaussen Nov 2015 #65
hack89 Nov 2015 #66
GGJohn Nov 2015 #89
Octafish Nov 2015 #91
GGJohn Nov 2015 #93
Octafish Nov 2015 #94
GGJohn Nov 2015 #97
Octafish Nov 2015 #103
Nitram Nov 2015 #127
GGJohn Nov 2015 #128
Nitram Nov 2015 #130
GGJohn Nov 2015 #131
Nitram Nov 2015 #133
GGJohn Nov 2015 #135
Rex Nov 2015 #140
GGJohn Nov 2015 #153
Rex Nov 2015 #161
avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #107
avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #109
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2015 #119
GGJohn Nov 2015 #124
Rex Nov 2015 #141
Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2015 #146
tritsofme Nov 2015 #8
7962 Nov 2015 #84
Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #9
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #10
Hydra Nov 2015 #11
erronis Nov 2015 #41
Plucketeer Nov 2015 #62
ryan_cats Nov 2015 #12
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #13
Liberalagogo Nov 2015 #15
MineralMan Nov 2015 #16
LiberalArkie Nov 2015 #17
starroute Nov 2015 #18
eppur_se_muova Nov 2015 #20
PosterChild Nov 2015 #73
Dustlawyer Nov 2015 #19
Fuddnik Nov 2015 #21
Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #23
Doubledee Nov 2015 #30
Half-Century Man Nov 2015 #31
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #79
zentrum Nov 2015 #27
The CCC Nov 2015 #28
Recursion Nov 2015 #33
MohRokTah Nov 2015 #34
ladjf Nov 2015 #35
jwirr Nov 2015 #37
Gothmog Nov 2015 #38
wyldwolf Nov 2015 #42
sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #43
Duval Nov 2015 #44
former9thward Nov 2015 #45
world wide wally Nov 2015 #52
former9thward Nov 2015 #53
world wide wally Nov 2015 #56
onenote Nov 2015 #104
chapdrum Nov 2015 #46
Stuart G Nov 2015 #47
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2015 #49
postatomic Nov 2015 #55
NonMetro Nov 2015 #57
NuclearDem Nov 2015 #58
grahamhgreen Nov 2015 #69
NuclearDem Nov 2015 #71
PosterChild Nov 2015 #75
ieoeja Nov 2015 #136
NuclearDem Nov 2015 #138
grahamhgreen Nov 2015 #145
NuclearDem Nov 2015 #147
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2015 #72
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #81
7962 Nov 2015 #85
malaise Nov 2015 #59
Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #60
kelly1mm Nov 2015 #61
smirkymonkey Nov 2015 #63
malthaussen Nov 2015 #64
Throd Nov 2015 #67
onenote Nov 2015 #105
vkkv Nov 2015 #68
MoreGOPoop Nov 2015 #70
kpete Nov 2015 #74
cascadiance Nov 2015 #76
Thespian2 Nov 2015 #77
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #78
kpete Nov 2015 #80
sorechasm Nov 2015 #82
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #83
sorechasm Nov 2015 #88
Person 2713 Dec 2015 #170
hifiguy Nov 2015 #86
PADemD Nov 2015 #87
H2O Man Nov 2015 #92
B Calm Nov 2015 #95
czarjak Nov 2015 #96
GGJohn Nov 2015 #98
hopemountain Nov 2015 #99
totodeinhere Nov 2015 #100
LineLineReply +
struggle4progress Nov 2015 #110
onenote Nov 2015 #101
PatrickforO Nov 2015 #102
YOHABLO Nov 2015 #113
avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #106
Rex Nov 2015 #108
TBF Nov 2015 #134
Rex Nov 2015 #139
GGJohn Nov 2015 #150
Rex Nov 2015 #160
GGJohn Nov 2015 #149
totodeinhere Nov 2015 #155
TBF Nov 2015 #156
totodeinhere Nov 2015 #157
TBF Nov 2015 #158
Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #167
TBF Nov 2015 #168
Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #169
McCamy Taylor Nov 2015 #111
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #112
daybranch Nov 2015 #116
Kalidurga Nov 2015 #117
Enthusiast Nov 2015 #118
Sunlei Nov 2015 #120
The Wizard Nov 2015 #121
MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #122
raouldukelives Nov 2015 #123
lark Nov 2015 #125
Nitram Nov 2015 #126
monicaangela Nov 2015 #129
kentuck Nov 2015 #132
Javaman Nov 2015 #137
TBF Nov 2015 #142
Javaman Nov 2015 #143
TBF Nov 2015 #148
Javaman Nov 2015 #159
GGJohn Nov 2015 #162
TBF Nov 2015 #163
Herebuddy Nov 2015 #164
TBF Nov 2015 #165
bobthedrummer Nov 2015 #144
GGJohn Nov 2015 #151
Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #166
Rocknrule Nov 2015 #152
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #154

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:14 AM

1. Uh...Yeh!! (eom)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:44 PM

32. Maybe

it should be tested in court.....any takers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lsewpershad (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:55 PM

50. This ^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:19 AM

2. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 AM

4. Thanks for this...I've never read it. Important information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:34 AM

6. Yes - The Powell Memo Is A Seminal Turning Point In American Politics

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:58 PM

51. In the '70s there was a lot of 1% anxiety. Check out "The Crisis of Governability of Democracies"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:01 PM

14. Thank you for the reminder about Reclaim Democracy!

I haven't visited that site in a very long time. So much great info there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:18 PM

22. My pleasure!

The fix is old. The dam is leaking. Get ready for a deluge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:30 PM

24. Thanks for the link

I have never read this before but it sure sounds like the boiler plate for the shock doctrine we've all come to know and love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:37 PM

29. The heads of the corporate state declared war on the American working class because

How dare they demand health care for seniors, civil rights for minorities, and an end to the war for American interests?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:58 PM

36. This vile person (ex-Tobacco lawyer) needs to remain infamous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:09 PM

39. by 1971 people were learning for themselves and challenging the establishment:

that could NOT be permitted, and the Memo unleashed the plague of corpo think tanks on us--even the fundie wave traces back to this (and was partly a reaction to this ironbound technocracy)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 03:59 AM

114. Never known of this memo -

Or ever visited the website.

Great find, thanks for sharing this important info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:30 AM

115. I hadn't, either.

Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:26 AM

5. Does it really matter How

they "take over" a government? Where are the investigations? The consequences are glaring! The powers at be cannot possibly Not understand What the Hell is happening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:32 PM

25. Maybe

because there is already enough infiltration to thwart any of that pesky investigation stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:38 AM

7. As a private citizen, you can call it what you want,

but it doesn't mean it is treason.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:33 PM

26. you're right more like nsurrection /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:12 PM

40. Sedition, yes, emphatically!

Treason, no, since that is defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article III.

EVIL as hell, though. Must be fought furiously! OVERTURN Citizens United!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:29 PM

90. ^^^This^^^,

Over turning CU would go a long ways towards taking back our govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:40 PM

48. Nice diversion.

Undermining the Constitution is treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:02 PM

54. Not according to the Constitution

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The reason treason was so tightly defined and put in the Constitution is because English kings so widely defined treason that it basically meant anything the king wanted it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:51 PM

65. Eh, your history is a bit off.

Parliament is the force that continually defined treason to mean what they wanted, to the point of convicting a reigning king of treason. And parliament is the reason that such a vague definition as "high crimes and misdemeanours" is considered a basis for impeachment. Since in the bad old days impeachment could cause one to lose his head, that is no small thing. And it was the king's ministers who were apt to be impeached. Sedition against the Crown usually resulted in corporal punishment, not capital punishment.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #65)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:03 PM

66. Point being treason is very tightly defined in America. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:25 PM

89. Which isn't what's happening.

So no diversion.

But if you truly believe it is, then take your concerns to the US Attorney's office and see what they have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:46 PM

91. Do you think working to pass laws that only serve the wealthy is treason?

I do, thanks to Adlai Stevenson, Jr.

"Corruption in public office is treason."


Here's an example: Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton and George W Bush have specialized together in Wealth Management at Swiss bank UBS.

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #91)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:50 PM

93. What you or I might think is irrelevent,

it's what the Constitution says, and the Constitution is pretty clear on what is treason, and this ain't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #93)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:08 PM

94. I'll go with Adlai Stevenson, Jr. He was a great Democrat.

Feel free to think what you want about treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:18 PM

97. And I'll go with the Constitution,

which trumps what Adlai Stevenson Jr. may think.

It's not what I think what treason, it's what the Constitution says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #97)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:41 AM

103. You are absolutely right.

You are going by the letter of the law.
Stevenson was going by the spirit of the law -- justice.

Today, I believe, most of the US political and legal leadership feel like you do. As long as it's legal, they can do whatever they want to do.

Seeing how they make the laws, that's pretty much everything from looting the banks and defrauding investors to secret police spying on America and making wars without end for profits without cease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #93)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:20 AM

127. I believe the question was whether WE think it's treason.

Not whether the Constitution thinks so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #127)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:27 AM

128. Again,

it doesn't matter what WE think is treason, it's what the Constitution says it is, and this ain't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #128)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:41 AM

130. The constitution did not invent the word "treason".

The meaning of the word does not begin and end with its use in that document except as it pertains to the government's justice system. If we think it is treason we can vote for representatives and a president who agree with us and will work to pass legislation to defend the US from the rapacity of corporations and the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #130)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:43 AM

131. But the Constitution narrowly defines treason,

and until it's changed, then it's what the Constitution says it is and under the definition of treason, this ain't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #131)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:48 AM

133. Apparently you didn't actually read my post before you repeated yourself.

You sound like a broken record. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #133)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:50 AM

135. I did read it,

and if or when the definition is changed, then this isn't treason in any way, shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #128)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:43 PM

140. Of course it matters what we think, this is not Congress so you are wasting our time

 

about the Constitution. WE were asked what we think. It doesn't matter if you do not like the question from the OP. If not, start a new thread on the Constitution. These are subjective answers in a discussion forum, you don't have to like it. It just is.

IOW - you say no it is not. Fine your opinion is just a valid as mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #140)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:19 PM

153. If I'm wasting your time, then here's a clue,

don't read my posts.

And it doesn't matter what WE think is treason, the Constitution narrowly defines what treason is and it is the final word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #153)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:20 AM

161. It does on this forum as an opinion are you that myopic?

 

If so then that is how it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #91)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:53 AM

107. Ugh!

 

No wonder they are such good chums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:55 AM

109. I don't think anyone has said it better

 

than you just have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 06:49 AM

119. I was going to say essentially the same thing.

I would have quoted Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


Incidentally, a major reason that the framers of the Constitution were explicit in their definition of treason stemmed from an incident during the reign of Henry VIII of England. One of Henry's political enemies, Lord Montague, was arrested and told the charge was treason. He said, "I have committed no treason." The arresting officer replied, "Treason is what the king says it is." The framers knew their history, and did not want treason to be whatever some governmental official said it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #119)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:46 AM

124. Very interesting.

Thanks.
The repukes having that kind of power would be a national nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #119)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:46 PM

141. Irrevelant point, the question was do WE think...not what is in the Constitution.

 

You can get off msg as much as you want, but the question was for a subjective opinion from posters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #141)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 05:25 PM

146. What the Koch Brothers are doing is damaging to the American Republic and to all of us

However, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, they are not committing treason.

If you are going to call it "treason", then it had better meet the legal definition of treason. It's as if someone set your car on fire: You can't say that they committed murder, since what they did was not murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:45 AM

8. No, political agendas I dislike are not treason.

Words have real meanings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:42 PM

84. Straight to the point!! "Treason" is tossed around way too much these days

 

by both right and left

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:46 AM

9. No.

And in 2015 it would take a lot more than "buying up the media" if you wanted to ensure that the public "cannot know the truth".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 11:53 AM

10. No, not even close n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:00 PM

11. Yes, but our Gov't has been taken over and non-functional for at least 35 years now

And nobody is interested in bringing the Bush Family up on charges, so really, there's nothing left to save. We're just pretending we have some sort of Representative gov't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:14 PM

41. True, that: We're just pretending we have some sort of Representative go'vt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erronis (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:41 PM

62. Pretending is as futile as reality

 

Our federal "rep" was elected with hefty corporate money a decade ago. And hefty corporate monies keep him insulated to where there's not even anyone willing to challenge him. The only time he shows his face around here is to court prospective backers (read that: not common folks).
I used to take the time to write him as if he cared. The "canned" answers I got only served to confirm that some staff member had actually noted my message. But nothing's gonna change. As long as his backers hold to the fantasy that Reid and Pelosi are responsible for the drought here, my time will be better spent talking to a brick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:00 PM

12. That

That isn't a very nice thing to say about George Soros.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:00 PM

13. Nnnnnnope.

 

Because I understand the definition of the word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:02 PM

15. Fascism or sedition, maybe

 

But not treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:03 PM

16. From our Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


Please do not try to redefine the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:05 PM

17. Not treason as much as a coup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:07 PM

18. It's technically subversion, not treason

Subversion is easy to describe but it's almost impossible to define legally because it's difficult to separate it from free speech and legitimate political activity. In the few places where there are laws against subversion, like China, they've often been turned against dissidents. So the activities listed in the OP are definitely a problem, but calling them treason when they aren't only confuses the issue.

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

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor". . . .

The problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.[9] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term, "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults". . . .

Subversive actions can generally be grouped into three interrelated categories:

* Establishing front groups and penetrating and manipulating existing political parties
* Infiltrating the armed forces, the police, and other institutions of the state, as well as important non-government organizations
* Generating civil unrest through demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:09 PM

20. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:12 PM

73. +100 !! (NT)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:09 PM

19. They OWN THE MEDIA, CONGRESS, POTUS, REGULATORY AGENCIES, WALL STREET,

THE MIC, OIL COMPANIES, BIG PHARMA, AND MOST OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! They are our government now! They just keep us fighting each other over the problems that they create in taking most of our money and tax dollars. We have allowed them to do this, but now they have pushed so far and been more blatant about what they have been doing that, along with the Internet, we are waking up to reality. Our challenge is to wake up as many people as we can to the truth about where things really stand and then doing something about it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:12 PM

21. Yep.

We fought a world War back in the 1940's to prevent corporations and the wealthy from taking over the world.

They're just using different tactics this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:30 PM

23. Really?

I don't remember many of Churchill's and FDR's speeches focusing on the threat posed by corporations and rich people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:41 PM

30. More beneath heaven and earth, Horatio



" The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of privat epower to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism, ownership of government by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I know, you said MANY speeches...but the eloquence and the points made were, in my opinion, worthy of insertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:43 PM

31. The fusion of corporatism and government is fascism.

The corporate people tried at the Nuremberg tribunals were called war profiteers.
Ya know, like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:24 PM

79. That is what we have now.

The only hope to stop the fascist wave is to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Vote for Bernie in 2016 and then for Bernie supporters for Congress in 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:35 PM

27. Wish Reich

…..could be in Bernie's cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:37 PM

28. Would You Call THIS Treason?

No. It's something far worse. It's Republicanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:49 PM

33. No, I'd call it a political agenda I strongly disagree with (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:51 PM

34. No, I wouldn't call it treason

 

Treason has a very well laid out and narrow definition in the constitution.

What is described is not only not treason, but is also completely legal. I don't like it and would like to see it changed, but it comes nowhere near what is defined as treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 12:53 PM

35. Maybe illegal but no treason. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:04 PM

37. Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:08 PM

38. Yes, this is treason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:18 PM

42. When we throw around the word 'treason,' we water down it's real meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:24 PM

43. Yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:28 PM

44. YES! eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:30 PM

45. No, I go by the definition in the Constitutiion.

I am surprised that Reich, who took an oath to defend the Constitution when he was a Cabinet official, has not read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:58 PM

52. Try combining a little common sense with the Constitution

It is definitely sabotage in time of war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:01 PM

53. Oh I think the Constitution has a lot of common sense.

Sorry you think it needs to be supported by something else. The Constitution is the law of the land, not some person's definition of "common sense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:08 PM

56. Interpretation is always the problem

Just look at the 2A as an example.
The only way to settle it would be in court, but we already know. How this SC would rule (which is part of the problem)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:44 AM

104. This supreme court and every other supreme court in US history

would come out exactly the same way.

Not treason under the very limited (and intentionally so) definition in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:36 PM

46. Not if there are no laws against it

 

And if there are, just what or whom is going to do the prosecuting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:38 PM

47. Thanks for posting kepte......Great Find!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 01:45 PM

49. Close

close to treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:07 PM

55. Suppose - Assume - Believe - Infer - Consider - Pretend

This is from July 2013. No biggee. This sounds like the Republican Agenda. Treason? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:21 PM

57. I guess not. I guess there is no law against Americans destroying their own country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:25 PM

58. No. But then again, I've actually read the constitutional definition of treason.

 

So I'm a little biased on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:33 PM

69. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,

 

or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Hmmmmm.

Would you agree with a charge of Domestic terrorism?

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

- 18 U.S. Code § 2331

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:45 PM

71. Apologies, comrade, I'm not interested in expanding the definitions

 

of terrorism, treason, and sedition to go after the kulaks.

Send the commissar my sincerest apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:21 PM

75. +10 !! (NT)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:20 AM

136. Straight out of the "liberals are commies" playbook. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #136)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:05 PM

138. No, just out of a history book.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:54 PM

145. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that appear to be intended

 

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.


Tell it to the judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #145)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 06:18 PM

147. Then watch the judge laugh you out of his courtroom

 

at the idea that you thought he would entertain bringing domestic terrorism charges against lobbyists for lobbying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:52 PM

72. Yes, then by that definition, the oligarchy are domestic terrorists. Thanks for your post, graham.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:36 PM

81. It's vague. Is dumping dangerous chemical waste in fiolation of criminal laws terrorism?

How can we determine whether dumping chemical waste is intended to intimidate or coerce people or to influence hte policy of a government by intimidation or coercion???? etc.?

"acgts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," and then is a jury supposed to figure out and vote on what the intent of the acts were?

But the guy who went into a mall to a meet and greet with a member of Congress was deemed "insane" if I remember correctly. That makes no sense.

That law lends itself to a lot of interpretations and seems to be written to be used selectively based on the political views of the person violating the law. Is it even needed in our law since you have to have violated the law to fit the definition of a terrorist in the first place. And what does "involve acts" mean?

I think that is a weak definition. Congress should rethink it and make it enforceable if possible. I think maybe terrorism is not a separate crime but rather should be reason to impose a stiffer sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:43 PM

85. Haaaaaaaaa!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 02:32 PM

59. Here's the real problem

If your government has spent the last century overthrowing governments in other countries 'in the national interest' (i.e. in the interest of the transnational corporations), why would said corporations not eventually overthrow its own government.

Either we believe in democracy for all or there will be democracy for none. It is the inherent contradictions that destroy systems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:22 PM

61. No, it is not treason to have different political views, even if those views are demonstrably bad.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:44 PM

63. Yes. Definitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 03:45 PM

64. Treason never prospers, what's the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:06 PM

67. Only if we are redefining the word to fit our biases.

The right wing has their own definition of treason and it is inaccurate as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #67)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:47 AM

105. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:27 PM

68. Hell YAH !!! n/t

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 04:36 PM

70. K & R

We've got to stop it, whatever we call the tearing down of our
democracy. Fuck a bunch of Fascists & their Bourgeoisie enablers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoreGOPoop (Reply #70)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:14 PM

74. spot on

thanks for the comment.


and peace,
kp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:51 PM

76. And bribing officials to stop efforts to stop climate change is also the crime of MASS MURDER!!!

 

Of the life on this planet, and could be the greatest crime committed on this planet since creation in my book!

That is why they belong in prison for life if not getting more punishment, and all of their assets should be seized to reverse the effects of their CRIMINAL ACTIONS against of us and against their own children who they are killing as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 05:51 PM

77. Well...................

.............YES..............


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:20 PM

78. Do you have a link? The picture or whatever it is does not show up on my computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:29 PM

80. Original text

before the meme:

Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections; (4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change isn't occurring, and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth. Would you call this treason

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/632765960069337

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:39 PM

82. Who can tell, since the funding source for these extremely wealthy might well be foreign gov'ts.

Intending to destroy ours with the intention of a take over, but we will never know thanks to the Citizens United ruling.

Thank you Justice Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #80)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:42 PM

83. If some of the money came from foreign interests intent on destroying our democracy and our

country, I would. We need a law that at least allows us to know just where donations to such groups come from. We have no idea how much of the money including campaign funding comes from foreign interests that are actually hostile to the US. We have no way of knowing that.

Think of the drug money that was being laundered through one of our big banks. What other money is laundered through say casinos, banks or sham businesses or not even laundered but used to fund political campaigns in our country? I don't know. I am asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #83)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 08:08 PM

88. I'm with you JDPriestly. It seems that CU creates an obvious weakness counter to

All those who stated 'No'.

I wish a Constitutional Scholar could prove us wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:23 AM

170. Good point to bring in to the discussion . Who is behind they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:44 PM

86. Hell yes.

 

It amounts to a declaration of war on our once constitutionally guaranteed form of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 07:10 PM

87. YES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 09:48 PM

92. Yep. I surely would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:11 PM

95. Yes I would!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:13 PM

96. Working against the will of the majority in a democracy?

You'd think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to czarjak (Reply #96)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:20 PM

98. Not even.

Working against the will of the majority isn't treason in any way, shape or form, it's called opposing views, which is perfectly legal in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:39 PM

99. yes i would. there is even worse than this being

threatened on facebook by militia groups that have infiltrated rural community groups where law enforcement is not available - especially within community neighborhood watch groups. many of these militia group members pretend to reside in the communities and are either recruiting or spreading military anarchy bs. it is disgusting and alarming. i can't figure out whether they are there to draw out armed militia anarchists with their inflammatory statements or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 12:55 AM

100. That would not be treason. There is a very specific legal definition of the term "treason"

in the Constitution and that is not it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:59 AM

110. +

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:39 AM

101. The only thing that matters is whether the Constitution would call it treason. And it wouldn't.

So I guess the answer from everyone should be no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:40 AM

102. I sure would. And they're making their move right now through the TPP and

TISA. We let these so-called 'free trade' agreements pass and we're truly fucked because the USA will be no more in 10 years - we'll all be one happy corporate utopia.

I shit you not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #102)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 03:48 AM

113. You got that right .. just read article by Chris Hedges .. wow we're screwed if this goes through

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:52 AM

106. Against all enemies foreign and domestic....

 

Yes, I think it is treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:55 AM

108. 317 and counting!

 

Good to know DU still has IT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #108)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:49 AM

134. There are a few definite "no's" in the crowd -

I'd be looking over all of their posts very carefully.

Anyone who cannot see the oligarchy and their soft fascist takeover at work in this country are likely complicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #134)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:38 PM

139. By now, unless they were born under a rock and have no idea of current events

 

everyone should know how badly the corporate world has taken over and controls our government officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:15 PM

150. True,

but that's still not treason according to the Constitutional definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #150)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:19 AM

160. Which was not the point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #134)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:12 PM

149. So you're the zampolit of DU?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #134)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:07 PM

155. Look over my posts all you want. I don't care. But what the oligarchy is doing does not meet

the constitutional definition of treason. In fact some scholars maintain that treason can only be committed during times of war and this country at present is not fighting a declared war. That by no means makes it right but we need to make an attempt to use correct terminology and avoid hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #155)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:16 PM

156. Section 3 -

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



In terms of "legal" definition I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are folks commenting on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #156)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:27 PM

157. If there are that many opinions on the topic then at the very least that should mean that

the subject is not nearly as cut and dried as the OP seems to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #157)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:50 PM

158. Many of us are not looking for the intricacies of legal opinion -

we are responding to the spirit of the discussion which is "do we still have a democracy?". For many of us that answer is "in name only".

I understand you are thinking of treason in a very strict sense - perhaps how it has been defined through the years in a legal sense. That's fine, but that's not what most folks are responding to here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #134)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:53 AM

167. Definite "no" here, and any would-be Dolores Umbridge, High Inqusitor of DU,

is more than welcome to "look over my posts very carefully".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #167)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 11:47 AM

168. Not my job -

but I'm more than familiar with your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #168)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 11:55 AM

169. So whose job do you think it is to scrutinize the posts

of those DUers who actually know the meaning of the word "treason"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 01:59 AM

111. Yes, I would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 02:37 AM

112. I would, but that list does not come within the legal definition of treason.

It is nonetheless evil, and has done more damage to our country than acts that have been actually adjudged treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 05:05 AM

116. Actually I would call them Hillary's and the republican's large donors'

Down with oligarchy, up with Democracy. Vote Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 05:26 AM

117. I would call it an oligarchy

It's been around for at least 400 years, perhaps 1,000 years. It came in with the early settlers and it was not destroyed by the founding fathers, in some ways it was codified into law and what wasn't codified was put in place by tradition and culture.

But, since the purpose of the Revolutionary war was stated to be to let people have freedom they didn't have under British rule I would say that the rules in place that helped the oligarchy were indeed treason and it's long tradition in this country needs to come to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 06:44 AM

118. K&R! This post has hundreds of recommendations!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 07:05 AM

120. just like what MLKing said about hitler, "everything they(he did was) do is legal"

I don't know how us 'little people' can ever 'win' or recover in our lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:02 AM

121. Koch addiction (NT)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:40 AM

122. Sorry... It took me this long to weigh in... ABSOLUTELY YES...

Purposely working against in a calculated manner what is constitutionally defined to uphold the laws on behalf OF the American people, which RESULTS in a the treasonous acts RR describes herein IS TREASON.

No amount of apology, or tap-dancing can get around it.

Many still alive have lived through examples of similarly described fascist based systems of marginalizing citizens who become casualties of these policies.

ENOUGH, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:13 AM

123. Well, I would, I have and I do.

One of the main reasons I refuse to assist them. I care too much about democracy for my fellow human beings than to diminish it by becoming a partial owner of the very institutions attacking it daily.

Some people honestly give a shit about the problems we face and the future we are creating. For others, they do all they can to assist the Dimon's and Blankfien's of the world and then have the chutzpah to wonder why things keep getting worse.

Like an abolitionist slave owner who continues profiting from the enslavement and misery of others and then openly wonders why we ALL can't do something about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:05 AM

125. Treason started when the R's stole the presidency for shrub

and has grown and grown ever since then. Now they know they can subvert the constitution, don't know if they can be stopped? Especially when Dems engage in purity wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:17 AM

126. Short answer...

YES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:39 AM

129. YES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 10:45 AM

132. I would.

But, that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:22 AM

137. no...

this is deconstructed America.

this is the direct result of 35 years of republican rule.

people are used to it now and think it the status quo.

if there is anything that should be put on trial here, it the American public for falling asleep on the job and allowing the machine to go out of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #137)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:00 PM

142. 35 years -

That takes us back to 1980, but also includes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

And you blame the American public for this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #142)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:22 PM

143. yup. we fell for their bullshit hook line and sinker.

roll your eyes all you wish if that helps you.

we turned our back on the last real democratic president, Jimmmy Carter and fell in line with the republican dream of stupidity.

it was set up long before he came to power, but Reagan put into effect.

and we all were lulled to sleep with morning in America.

we haven't had any form of democracy since.

each and every following president build their legacy upon that fractured rock.

and here we are now, being told that Bernie is an impossible outsider, a SOCIALIST!!!, and we should continue to vote for the status quo with Hillary; who seems to change and conform to what Bernie says the day before.

she sees the writing and is once again selling us the bill of goods that many democrats are swallowing up whole.

we are a foolish nation, easily lead to via the easiest course of action.

I live in Texas, my Democratic party vote won't matter at all. So I can safely mark my ballot (more like write it in) for Bernie and sleep well at night knowing that I didn't, once again, compromise my integrity.

as my sig line states, "I would rather vote for something and not get it, then for vote for something I don't want and get it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #143)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 06:38 PM

148. ^ Well most of this I actually agree with.

Except for blaming the American people. I don't think this is people being mean-spirited for the most part (although those folks certainly exist). Mostly people have been led astray by propaganda delivered by a paid-off media. I don't know that the rank and file in this country really understand that FOX news is entertainment (with the other networks not far behind if we're honest). And, finally, I'm not so sure of voting procedures/voting machines either and whether we're even having actual elections anymore (although even if we are we're getting the choices they want us to have - see my sig line).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #148)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 11:51 PM

159. we are all to blame.

Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

to have an active an healthy democracy the voting population has to take an aggressive active part.

We as a nation do not.

we would rather complain and let someone else fix it.

as a result, people allowed the fairness act to be repealed and no one said a word, especially we democrats because we were all so in love with good old Bill. glass-stegal went the way of the dinosaurs and not a peep from anyone one of us. We all trusted Bill. Those are just two very glaring examples.

and regarding electronic voting, yes, many people made a huge stink about it, but were their protests and riots aside from florida to keep our voting properly accounted for? Nope. we all just sat by and watched, thinking that it will all work out. In a real democracy were people take an active roll, the voting would have been stopped, the election suspended until proper procedure followed in order to count all the votes and stood for the "hanging chad" bullshit. Instead, the people of this nation, sat back and watched as the supreme court decided who was president and not the people. not only were the people complacent, but the supreme court should have done it's job and said, "no fucking way, this is for the people to decide, not us", but alas, they broke constitutional law for stupid expedience.

while we had been living under the guise of a democracy up until that point, we ceased being one after that point.

if they supremes can step in once, I can guarantee you, they will again. and people then really won't give a shit, because they will think that's how it's done "according to the constitution", via brain washing from our enabling media. all other protesters, who know better, will be shouted down my the moron majority.

this is the nation we live in. perpetual war that is now decided via fiat without congressional approval or a charade by those in congress who love to go along to get along.

again, this is why I am voting for Bernie. He read the patriot act and voted against it. I paid attention and gave a critical eye at the "evidence" and voted against going to war in Iraq.

while hillary will continue to make her excuses to the masses that are willing to go along to get along, I will not stomach it. Neither will those who know better. but don't worry she has her excuse squad out there to make sure we are the crazy ones.

I'm probably one of a very small group of people who feels this passionate about this. I refuse to vote for her. I just can't. I have to stop giving the machine it's fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #159)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:31 AM

162. Bravo!


Best post in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #159)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:17 AM

163. We are just blaming different sources

and I'm not sure why that is. I am with you overall on this and feel the same way that you do about Hillary's complicity. She is part of the elite set pulling the strings for the very wealthy (net worth M$45 - that doesn't even include Bill - together their net worth is well over M$100). Some striking similarities to Germany early 1900s in my view. And I come to the same conclusions you do re where we are as a country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #163)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:26 AM

164. Poor Germany...

destined forever to be the comparitive baseline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Herebuddy (Reply #164)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:44 AM

165. You'll need to look elsewhere for sympathy for Germany -

I seem to be plum out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 04:28 PM

144. Corporate fascism is treasonous. K&R. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:17 PM

151. No, it's not,

according to the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #144)

Tue Nov 10, 2015, 10:48 AM

166. What does that even mean? Is "corporate fascism" like having a really mean boss?

And what's with devaluing "treason" to mean "something I really, really don't like"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:19 PM

152. I thought "treason" meant "disagreeing with a Republican president"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 9, 2015, 09:24 PM

154. Under the Constitution this is not treason, so no.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread