• 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!

Did the GOP Senators commit a Treason act against Obama and the Country?

Did the GOP commit a Treason acted, against Obama and the Country ?


  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
They didn't commit treason, but they may have broken the law and certainly acted inappropriately on the world stage.
 
The democrats should not whine and complain, they did the same thing when they went to visit Assad in 2007 behind the back of President Bush.

And the republicans should stop complaining about executive agreements that Obama wants to close. Obama is not the first and not the only president to do this. According to John Stewart from the Daily Show Ronald Reagan also made deals with China and Iran using the executive agreement.

People should stop acting like this all is happening for the first time. Was it smart from the Republicans? No, it just makes the US look weaker to idiot countries like Iran, because now they have something in writing which shows the "duplicitous nature of Americans" (this is not my opinion, but this is something Iran could "invent/create" to give off a negative image to US politics).

Were those agreement about nuclear programs?
 
They didn't commit treason, but they may have broken the law and certainly acted inappropriately on the world stage.

Come back when have something.
 
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?

What "things"?

Please, using the constitutional definition of "treason" demonstrate how "Republicans" [not elected republicans in congress, but ALL Republicans as you have stated] have even come close to treason.

As far as I am concerned this is no more than an ignorantly conceived bait thread to counteract all the justified negative publicity building up against Obama and his side kick Hillary "no secrets" Clinton.
 
Everyone but you understood his post. This is your problem.

Then he should have quoted what he wanted to quote instead of quoting something which did not say what he wanted to criticize.

That is his problem - not mine.
 
Then he should have quoted what he wanted to quote instead of quoting something which did not say what he wanted to criticize.

That is his problem - not mine.

You're the only one who didn't understand it or saw it as any kind of a problem.
 
You're the only one who didn't understand it or saw it as any kind of a problem.

DO NOT reproduce a quote from somebody and rip into them for saying something they DID NOT say in that quote but which was said elsewhere when you did not reproduce that in your post.

Pretty simple and pretty common sense.

Yes - this is a sore point for me because year after year I get increasingly angry that people claim I said certain things but they cannot produce the quote which says so. In this case , it would have been rather simple for the poster to produce the correct words they wanted to criticize - but they did not.

Yes - maybe I feel this issue more than most and am a stickler for it. Mea culpa.
 
There is no such crime as “treason against Obama”. Treason is the only crime that is actually defined as such in the Constitution itself. Nothing about the Senators having signed this letter has anything whatsoever to do with the definition of treason.

Now, Obama, on the other hand, has use the power of his office to take the side of invading foreign criminals, against that of this country and its people. That does meet the definition of treason, and if this nation truly cared about the rule of law, he would be removed from office, tried, and either put in prison for a very, very, very long time, or else be put to death.

Wow. That long, huh?
 
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?

False, nothing the Senate did was new.

The left needs to learn what treason is. Opposing Obama is not treason. Aid and comfort to Iran might be, though.
 
"treason against obama"?


how does that work again?

:roll::doh

An excellent question since you quoted a post THAT DID NOT HAVE THE PHRASE "TREASON AGAINST OBAMA" IN IT!!!!!

But why should that stop you?

here it is right from your post

Read the thread title, bro.


Did the GOP Senators commit a Treason act against Obama and the Country?


/facepalm

It doesn't need the exact phrase since it's part of a thread.

read your own post - bro - and the quote from a person who YOU ripped into who never said what you accused them of --- bro.

quoting somebody and then ridiculing them for something they did say is engaging in fraud and a falsehood.

Defending them is even worse.

But hey - this is politics here on the site so what else is to be expected from the usual suspects?

apparently you wish to make yourself look foolish in order to pick a fight with me.

I quoted the opening post, the thread starter who titled his thread. "did the gop senators commit a treason act against obama and the country?".


I believe I once told you that people who have a 20 point IQ difference often can't relate to each other. I've long suspected that to be our issue. You have a wonderful day.

Psssst, look at the thread title and the precise question being asked.

I see. So you think someone other than the OP titled this thread.

foolish is quoting a post which said nothing about treason against obama.

The person in question DID NOT quote the thread title in the post I was replying to. That is the point.

Rev was addressing the actual question asked (and it's upon that question which the poll and entire thread is based) and he quoted the guy who asked that question.

All you had to do was quote the part you intended to quote which was the thread title - but instead you reproduced a different quote which did not say what you wanted it to say. The fault was not mine in pointing out what you had done.

The person he quoted was the person who started this thread

This threads title, created by the person he quoted, is "did GOP senators commit a treason act against Obama and the Country?"

The poll on this thread, created by the person he quoted, is "Did the GOP commit a treason acted, against Obama and the country?"

The poster who's OP rev quoted also voted "yes" in his poll asking if the GOP committed a treasonous act against Obama and the country.

So yes, contrary to your claim that he "NEVER said" what Rev sugggested he claimed, the person he quoted absolutely did say it. They didn't say it in their POST, but they did say it via their thread title and poll that were attached to the OP he quoted.

Then he should have quoted that line in his post. He DID NOT do so and was thus left open for the justifiable criticism.

Then he should have quoted what he wanted to quote instead of quoting something which did not say what he wanted to criticize.

That is his problem - not mine.

You're the only one who didn't understand it or saw it as any kind of a problem.

DO NOT reproduce a quote from somebody and rip into them for saying something they DID NOT say in that quote but which was said elsewhere when you did not reproduce that in your post.

Pretty simple and pretty common sense.

Yes - this is a sore point for me because year after year I get increasingly angry that people claim I said certain things but they cannot produce the quote which says so. In this case , it would have been rather simple for the poster to produce the correct words they wanted to criticize - but they did not.

Yes - maybe I feel this issue more than most and am a stickler for it. Mea culpa.

Really? It's such a common practice to quote the OP in order to address something in particular about their thread, yet this is the first time I've seen you make an issue of it (despite repeated explanation). Is it really what was said that bothered you or who it was that said it?
 
Really? It's such a common practice to quote the OP in order to address something in particular about their thread, yet this is the first time I've seen you make an issue of it (despite repeated explanation). Is it really what was said that bothered you or who it was that said it?

If it brings forth the issue of producing the right quote in your post - I am happy to take the heat for this.
 
It's not illegal, but the GOP just handed the Dems an unbelievable electoral cudgel. What a breathtakingly stupid maneuver.

You believe standing up for America give the democrats an advantange?

Interesting perspective.
 
You can put the word "may" on anything you want.

I use words like may because it's the most accurate non-partisan word to use in this case. It's not definite or likely that a court would find essentially the entire majority party guilty of a crime. But it is not impossible nor unlikely that that they violated the law. By any honest reading, the GoP could be indited but conviction is questionable.

So how likely do you think it is that the GoP violated the law?
 
The letter to Iran is not without precedent.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan's presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua's contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush's invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him. - See more at: MSNBC Falsely Claims No 'Precedent' for Congress Defying President on Foreign Policy

Despite the networks’ eagerness to tout Democratic opposition to the GOP letter, on two separate occasions the “big three” completely ignored a letter penned by former Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) written to the Soviet Union in 1983 aimed at undermining President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear negotiations with the Communist regime. - See more at: Flashback: Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy.

So there you have it. Democrats in congress interjected themselves into foreign policy matters with foreign leaders in Nicaragua, Syria and Russia during nuclear arms negotiations. If Obama would put down the pen and phone and work with congress now that it's under republican control, extrodenary measures like the letter to Iran wouldn't be necessary but he'd rather cut a deal without congressional approval which is favorable to Iran and which fits into his pro Muslim world view.

Nice try, but I don't think the above quite measures up to what this group of 47 Republican Senators have done.

For starters, none of the negotiations referenced above had anything to do with a peaceful arms reduction deal between either former President Reagan or GW Bush. Furthermore, the letter Sen. Kennedy wrote to the Russian government while Reagan was in office had far more to do with undermining his re-election efforts than interfering with his nuclear weapons reductions negotiations. Jim Wright's meeting with opposition leaders in the lead up to what would become the Iran/Contra Affair had nothing to do with him attempting to thwart an arms deal. It was more along the lines of a "fact-finding mission" akin to what Republicans are currently doing with Hillary over Libya.

The correlations you've attempted to make aren't nearly the same.
 
Nice try, but I don't think the above quite measures up to what this group of 47 Republican Senators have done.

For starters, none of the negotiations referenced above had anything to do with a peaceful arms reduction deal between either former President Reagan or GW Bush. Furthermore, the letter Sen. Kennedy wrote to the Russian government while Reagan was in office had far more to do with undermining his re-election efforts than interfering with his nuclear weapons reductions negotiations. Jim Wright's meeting with opposition leaders in the lead up to what would become the Iran/Contra Affair had nothing to do with him attempting to thwart an arms deal. It was more along the lines of a "fact-finding mission" akin to what Republicans are currently doing with Hillary over Libya.

The correlations you've attempted to make aren't nearly the same.

A valiant attempt at misdirection. Failed but valiant. At issue is wether congress has a place inserting itself into foreign affairs. Clearly there is evidence that they have. In addition, the treaty clause in the constitution states, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Therefore, congress has a rightful place in the negotiations with Iran which Obama has taken on unilaterally.
 
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?

Providing a country with information about our own country's Constitutional process has never been done before? Hmmm...maybe you're right about that...maybe your wrong. I'm leaning toward you being wrong.

In any event, do you think it's a bad thing to try to educate others? Is this somehow "against Obama" and needs to be punished? Perhaps you think it's in Obama's best interests to keep his negotiating partners in the dark about the Constitutional process in his own country?

If your answer to these questions is "yes", then I would like to hear your justification for that answer.
 
I use words like may because it's the most accurate non-partisan word to use in this case. It's not definite or likely that a court would find essentially the entire majority party guilty of a crime. But it is not impossible nor unlikely that that they violated the law. By any honest reading, the GoP could be indited but conviction is questionable.

So how likely do you think it is that the GoP violated the law?

Well maybe you can enlighten us as to which law may have been broken.
 
I have but one question on this matter:

The President has the power to negotiate treaties. But only our legislative branch has the power to ratify it and make it binding. Per the US Constitution. Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2.
 
Back
Top Bottom