General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

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

Sun Nov 8, 2015, 06:42 PM

Nov 2015

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

170 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would You Call THIS Treason? [View all] kpete Nov 2015 OP

Uh...Yeh!! (eom) CanSocDem Nov 2015 #1

Maybe lsewpershad Nov 2015 #32

This ^ world wide wally Nov 2015 #50

Yes. daleanime Nov 2015 #2

The Powell Memo, 1971 leveymg Nov 2015 #3

Thanks for this...I've never read it. Important information. haikugal Nov 2015 #4

Yes - The Powell Memo Is A Seminal Turning Point In American Politics cantbeserious Nov 2015 #6

In the '70s there was a lot of 1% anxiety. Check out "The Crisis of Governability of Democracies" leveymg Nov 2015 #51

Thank you for the reminder about Reclaim Democracy! CrispyQ Nov 2015 #14

My pleasure! leveymg Nov 2015 #22

Thanks for the link 2naSalit Nov 2015 #24

The heads of the corporate state declared war on the American working class because mountain grammy Nov 2015 #29

This vile person (ex-Tobacco lawyer) needs to remain infamous arendt Nov 2015 #36

by 1971 people were learning for themselves and challenging the establishment: MisterP Nov 2015 #39

Never known of this memo - truedelphi Nov 2015 #114

I hadn't, either. SusanaMontana41 Nov 2015 #115

Does it really matter How fredamae Nov 2015 #5

Maybe 2naSalit Nov 2015 #25

As a private citizen, you can call it what you want, GGJohn Nov 2015 #7

you're right more like nsurrection /nt demwing Nov 2015 #26

Sedition, yes, emphatically! lastlib Nov 2015 #40

^^^This^^^, GGJohn Nov 2015 #90

Nice diversion. Octafish Nov 2015 #48

Not according to the Constitution hack89 Nov 2015 #54

Eh, your history is a bit off. malthaussen Nov 2015 #65

Point being treason is very tightly defined in America. Nt hack89 Nov 2015 #66

Which isn't what's happening. GGJohn Nov 2015 #89

Do you think working to pass laws that only serve the wealthy is treason? Octafish Nov 2015 #91

What you or I might think is irrelevent, GGJohn Nov 2015 #93

I'll go with Adlai Stevenson, Jr. He was a great Democrat. Octafish Nov 2015 #94

And I'll go with the Constitution, GGJohn Nov 2015 #97

You are absolutely right. Octafish Nov 2015 #103

I believe the question was whether WE think it's treason. Nitram Nov 2015 #127

Again, GGJohn Nov 2015 #128

The constitution did not invent the word "treason". Nitram Nov 2015 #130

But the Constitution narrowly defines treason, GGJohn Nov 2015 #131

Apparently you didn't actually read my post before you repeated yourself. Nitram Nov 2015 #133

I did read it, GGJohn Nov 2015 #135

Of course it matters what we think, this is not Congress so you are wasting our time Rex Nov 2015 #140

If I'm wasting your time, then here's a clue, GGJohn Nov 2015 #153

It does on this forum as an opinion are you that myopic? Rex Nov 2015 #161

Ugh! avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #107

I don't think anyone has said it better avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #109

I was going to say essentially the same thing. Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2015 #119

Very interesting. GGJohn Nov 2015 #124

Irrevelant point, the question was do WE think...not what is in the Constitution. Rex Nov 2015 #141

What the Koch Brothers are doing is damaging to the American Republic and to all of us Fortinbras Armstrong Nov 2015 #146

No, political agendas I dislike are not treason. tritsofme Nov 2015 #8

Straight to the point!! "Treason" is tossed around way too much these days 7962 Nov 2015 #84

No. Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #9

No, not even close n/t SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #10

Yes, but our Gov't has been taken over and non-functional for at least 35 years now Hydra Nov 2015 #11

True, that: We're just pretending we have some sort of Representative go'vt. erronis Nov 2015 #41

Pretending is as futile as reality Plucketeer Nov 2015 #62

That ryan_cats Nov 2015 #12

Nnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2015 #13

Fascism or sedition, maybe Liberalagogo Nov 2015 #15

From our Constitution: MineralMan Nov 2015 #16

Not treason as much as a coup LiberalArkie Nov 2015 #17

It's technically subversion, not treason starroute Nov 2015 #18

... eppur_se_muova Nov 2015 #20

+100 !! (NT) PosterChild Nov 2015 #73

They OWN THE MEDIA, CONGRESS, POTUS, REGULATORY AGENCIES, WALL STREET, Dustlawyer Nov 2015 #19

Yep. Fuddnik Nov 2015 #21

Really? Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #23

More beneath heaven and earth, Horatio Doubledee Nov 2015 #30

The fusion of corporatism and government is fascism. Half-Century Man Nov 2015 #31

That is what we have now. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #79

Wish Reich zentrum Nov 2015 #27

Would You Call THIS Treason? The CCC Nov 2015 #28

No, I'd call it a political agenda I strongly disagree with (nt) Recursion Nov 2015 #33

No, I wouldn't call it treason MohRokTah Nov 2015 #34

Maybe illegal but no treason. nt ladjf Nov 2015 #35

Absolutely. jwirr Nov 2015 #37

Yes, this is treason Gothmog Nov 2015 #38

When we throw around the word 'treason,' we water down it's real meaning. wyldwolf Nov 2015 #42

Yes! sabrina 1 Nov 2015 #43

YES! eom Duval Nov 2015 #44

No, I go by the definition in the Constitutiion. former9thward Nov 2015 #45

Try combining a little common sense with the Constitution world wide wally Nov 2015 #52

Oh I think the Constitution has a lot of common sense. former9thward Nov 2015 #53

Interpretation is always the problem world wide wally Nov 2015 #56

This supreme court and every other supreme court in US history onenote Nov 2015 #104

Not if there are no laws against it chapdrum Nov 2015 #46

Thanks for posting kepte......Great Find!!!!! Stuart G Nov 2015 #47

Close Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2015 #49

Suppose - Assume - Believe - Infer - Consider - Pretend postatomic Nov 2015 #55

I guess not. I guess there is no law against Americans destroying their own country. NonMetro Nov 2015 #57

No. But then again, I've actually read the constitutional definition of treason. NuclearDem Nov 2015 #58

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, grahamhgreen Nov 2015 #69

Apologies, comrade, I'm not interested in expanding the definitions NuclearDem Nov 2015 #71

+10 !! (NT) PosterChild Nov 2015 #75

Straight out of the "liberals are commies" playbook. n/t ieoeja Nov 2015 #136

No, just out of a history book. NuclearDem Nov 2015 #138

the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that appear to be intended grahamhgreen Nov 2015 #145

Then watch the judge laugh you out of his courtroom NuclearDem Nov 2015 #147

Yes, then by that definition, the oligarchy are domestic terrorists. Thanks for your post, graham. Dont call me Shirley Nov 2015 #72

It's vague. Is dumping dangerous chemical waste in fiolation of criminal laws terrorism? JDPriestly Nov 2015 #81

Haaaaaaaaa!! 7962 Nov 2015 #85

Here's the real problem malaise Nov 2015 #59

This message was self-deleted by its author Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #60

No, it is not treason to have different political views, even if those views are demonstrably bad.nt kelly1mm Nov 2015 #61

Yes. Definitely. smirkymonkey Nov 2015 #63

Treason never prospers, what's the reason? malthaussen Nov 2015 #64

Only if we are redefining the word to fit our biases. Throd Nov 2015 #67

+1 onenote Nov 2015 #105

Hell YAH !!! n/t vkkv Nov 2015 #68

K & R MoreGOPoop Nov 2015 #70

spot on kpete Nov 2015 #74

And bribing officials to stop efforts to stop climate change is also the crime of MASS MURDER!!! cascadiance Nov 2015 #76

Well................... Thespian2 Nov 2015 #77

Do you have a link? The picture or whatever it is does not show up on my computer. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #78

Original text kpete Nov 2015 #80

Who can tell, since the funding source for these extremely wealthy might well be foreign gov'ts. sorechasm Nov 2015 #82

If some of the money came from foreign interests intent on destroying our democracy and our JDPriestly Nov 2015 #83

I'm with you JDPriestly. It seems that CU creates an obvious weakness counter to sorechasm Nov 2015 #88

Good point to bring in to the discussion . Who is behind they? Person 2713 Dec 2015 #170

Hell yes. hifiguy Nov 2015 #86

YES! PADemD Nov 2015 #87

Yep. I surely would. H2O Man Nov 2015 #92

Yes I would! B Calm Nov 2015 #95

Working against the will of the majority in a democracy? czarjak Nov 2015 #96

Not even. GGJohn Nov 2015 #98

yes i would. there is even worse than this being hopemountain Nov 2015 #99

That would not be treason. There is a very specific legal definition of the term "treason" totodeinhere Nov 2015 #100

+ struggle4progress Nov 2015 #110

The only thing that matters is whether the Constitution would call it treason. And it wouldn't. onenote Nov 2015 #101

I sure would. And they're making their move right now through the TPP and PatrickforO Nov 2015 #102

You got that right .. just read article by Chris Hedges .. wow we're screwed if this goes through YOHABLO Nov 2015 #113

Against all enemies foreign and domestic.... avaistheone1 Nov 2015 #106

317 and counting! Rex Nov 2015 #108

There are a few definite "no's" in the crowd - TBF Nov 2015 #134

By now, unless they were born under a rock and have no idea of current events Rex Nov 2015 #139

True, GGJohn Nov 2015 #150

Which was not the point. Rex Nov 2015 #160

So you're the zampolit of DU? GGJohn Nov 2015 #149

Look over my posts all you want. I don't care. But what the oligarchy is doing does not meet totodeinhere Nov 2015 #155

Section 3 - TBF Nov 2015 #156

If there are that many opinions on the topic then at the very least that should mean that totodeinhere Nov 2015 #157

Many of us are not looking for the intricacies of legal opinion - TBF Nov 2015 #158

Definite "no" here, and any would-be Dolores Umbridge, High Inqusitor of DU, Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #167

Not my job - TBF Nov 2015 #168

So whose job do you think it is to scrutinize the posts Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #169

Yes, I would. McCamy Taylor Nov 2015 #111

I would, but that list does not come within the legal definition of treason. SunSeeker Nov 2015 #112

Actually I would call them Hillary's and the republican's large donors' daybranch Nov 2015 #116

I would call it an oligarchy Kalidurga Nov 2015 #117

K&R! This post has hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Nov 2015 #118

just like what MLKing said about hitler, "everything they(he did was) do is legal" Sunlei Nov 2015 #120

Koch addiction (NT) The Wizard Nov 2015 #121

Sorry... It took me this long to weigh in... ABSOLUTELY YES... MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #122

Well, I would, I have and I do. raouldukelives Nov 2015 #123

Treason started when the R's stole the presidency for shrub lark Nov 2015 #125

Short answer... Nitram Nov 2015 #126

YES! monicaangela Nov 2015 #129

I would. kentuck Nov 2015 #132

no... Javaman Nov 2015 #137

35 years - TBF Nov 2015 #142

yup. we fell for their bullshit hook line and sinker. Javaman Nov 2015 #143

^ Well most of this I actually agree with. TBF Nov 2015 #148

we are all to blame. Javaman Nov 2015 #159

Bravo! GGJohn Nov 2015 #162

We are just blaming different sources TBF Nov 2015 #163

Poor Germany... Herebuddy Nov 2015 #164

You'll need to look elsewhere for sympathy for Germany - TBF Nov 2015 #165

Corporate fascism is treasonous. K&R. n/t bobthedrummer Nov 2015 #144

No, it's not, GGJohn Nov 2015 #151

What does that even mean? Is "corporate fascism" like having a really mean boss? Nye Bevan Nov 2015 #166

I thought "treason" meant "disagreeing with a Republican president" Rocknrule Nov 2015 #152

Under the Constitution this is not treason, so no. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #154