• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should it be treason for a President to break their promises made to get elected?

Should Presidents who deceived the masses to get elected be deemed traitors?

  • Maybe...perhaps if there was a way to prove the deception?

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • No

    Votes: 35 83.3%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
black hole

black hole

Banned
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

No, it should not. Those promises are made out of ignorance and the lack of a crystal ball.

Take Obama, for instance and all the promises he made concerning the war and GITMO. He made those promises, before he showed up in the Oval Office on his first day as prez. That's when the guys with the binders--the guys who aren't political appointees and don't have to worry about losing their jobs because they told the president something he didn't like--said, "Mr. President, you can't do all that **** and here is why".
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

The Constitution contains a very specific definition of what may be prosecuted as treason in this nation.

What you propose does not come anywhere close to meeting that definition, nor to being in any way relevant to it.

Article III, Section 3:


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.​
 
Broken promises can be intentional. They can be due to the opposition party thwarting them. They can be a simple change of the mind. They can also be due to naivete in that the candidate is unaware exactly how virtually impossible it is to get in office and simply undo something that is already established. (I understand both GWB and BO learned this lesson quickly in their early Presidential days.)
 
If apdst thinks your argument is too extreme, you have some self-reflecting to do. Obviously I voted "no". Maybe some sort of repercussions for certain levels of lying, but treason? People hang for treason.
 
Last edited:
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Treason has a specific meaning; this isn't even close. Besides, sometimes promises need to be broken when new situations arise.
 
No. As highly informed voters we should be able to tell which campaign promises are not possible.
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...
I see you are new. Welcome. I'm knid of new too. But, gee, your poll is revealing obout how simple you think things are. Explain a bit about how you think government works. Or, some examples of doing the opposit once in office.
 
Last edited:
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

No.First of of all a president can't do squat without the senate and congress. It is not the job of congress and senate to make the president's promises come true. Now president can try to push them into putting a bill on his desk that is full of things he wants.And second, failing to uphold campaign promises is not a act of treason.
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...
Only the most foolish of the fools will believe campaign "promises", or advertising in general..
When man improves, then politicians and advertisers can be believed, this is happening slowly but surely.
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

Unless you want chaos, the answer must be no. Further, what incentive is there for politicians to lead if their options are limited by speeches or initial positions, and their status as Americans deserving of life in question? Next, how is it to be that a politician with such restrictions can arise approval from the populace without stretches in what is possible. Lastly, what is possible is not a guarantee for the end result.
 
If this ridiculous idea ever came to pass, politicians would simply...stop making any promises.
 
Maybe we do need more accountability in our society. Treason for breaking campaign promises, death penalty for jaywalking, drawn and quartered for exceeding the recommended daily sodium intake. That would fix us right up.

(I fully expect Tigger to "Like" this.)
 
black hole said:
Seems to be a trend for candidates from both parties to make promises to the masses just for manipulation to get elected, but then do the opposite once in office.

My question is...

Should Presidents who make promises to the masses to get elected only to do the opposite once in office be looked at as traitors?
Click to expand...

No, there are a lot of complications in office to not get something done. A law like that would encourage partisan breakdown of the government as one party just has to play the obstructionist role to get the other cast as "traitor". A President should be held to the Constitution, and gross violation of such should result in punishment.
 
Traitors act to the detriment of the country. Letting down your voters is not the same as betraying your country.
 
Ikari said:
No, there are a lot of complications in office to not get something done. A law like that would encourage partisan breakdown of the government as one party just has to play the obstructionist role to get the other cast as "traitor". A President should be held to the Constitution, and gross violation of such should result in punishment.
Click to expand...

I don't even consider it breaking a promise if a President (or whoever) can't get something done because of obstructionism. And a smart candidate only makes promises he/she can keep, such as "seeking" legislation.
 
I see it's just another hit and run thread. Propose a ridiculous idea, see how all the posters oppose it and refute it thoroughly, then run
 
Proud South Korean said:
I see it's just another hit and run thread. Propose a ridiculous idea, see how all the posters oppose it and refute it thoroughly, then run
Click to expand...

Not really, Just seeing a lot of frustration where people want to see changes in the direction this country is heading and voting someone new in office doesn't seem to change anything.

There are some specific issues where candidates pound their campaign with an issue and then once in office the new elected President does a 180deg turn on the issue in essence deceiving the American people.

Lots of good points put out on this issue explaining how it isn't treason.

I personally believe some form of accountability should come about for outright deceptions to get popular votes only to do something different in office. Not sure how it could be done though?
 
black hole said:
Not really, Just seeing a lot of frustration where people want to see changes in the direction this country is heading and voting someone new in office doesn't seem to change anything.

There are some specific issues where candidates pound their campaign with an issue and then once in office the new elected President does a 180deg turn on the issue in essence deceiving the American people.

Lots of good points put out on this issue explaining how it isn't treason.

I personally believe some form of accountability should come about for outright deceptions to get popular votes only to do something different in office. Not sure how it could be done though?
Click to expand...

We do have a method for accountability. It's called "the ballot box".
 
apdst said:
No, it should not. Those promises are made out of ignorance and the lack of a crystal ball.

Take Obama, for instance and all the promises he made concerning the war and GITMO. He made those promises, before he showed up in the Oval Office on his first day as prez. That's when the guys with the binders--the guys who aren't political appointees and don't have to worry about losing their jobs because they told the president something he didn't like--said, "Mr. President, you can't do all that **** and here is why".
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Basically, anyone who actually believes that a candidate can possibly keep every campaign promise is delusional. I've never seen any politician who didn;'t make at least 50 promises that caused me to say "Yeah right, like that's ever going to happen." They might very well mean to keep their promises, but they are not always very in touch with reality.
 
A promise intentionally broken is a lie, but sometimes a person running for office makes promises they didn't realize they would never have a prayer of fulfilling, that's not a lie just a big dream. The constitutional definition is extrememly concise and simple for a reason, and that does not include a broken campaign promise. As well breaking campaign promises isn't even perjury since there was no oath administered prior to attaining the office, however if the promise is a sworn oath to uphold the constitution and then extra constitutional actions are deliberately entered into then a case could be made for that charge, but then again nobody will ever be prosecuted under that standard. So, no it broken campaign promises aren't criminal, just aggravating.
 
It is not traitorous to lie. Sometimes they say they will do something then find out later they can't fulfill their promise. That isn't a lie, it's politics.
 
From lectlaw.com:
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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
Click to expand...

Making a bunch of stupid promises hardly qualifies to the above definition, IMO.
 
tessaesque said:
From lectlaw.com:


Making a bunch of stupid promises hardly qualifies to the above definition, IMO.
Click to expand...
We have I believe the most lax treason law amongst the major nations. The reason for that is because of the ease at which it could be defined by the king prior to the Magna Carta. Treason should be very concise because people must have the lattitude to question things that a government does which may be extra constitutional or otherwise not reflective of our common goals and values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom