• 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!

Could Trump be a traitor?

Chomsky said:
Possibly. Though it was minimal in terms of influence. However, I suppose you can make the argument that only very little minimal help was needed, due to the tightness of the three or four states that swung his way by a slim majority (WI, PA, MI).

And yeah, Hillary sucked. Big time.

But still the guy pulled it off, and it's going to go in the annals as an unbelievable upset and achievement.
Click to expand...

Achieved through criminality.

The Comey fiasco ****ed Hillary much more than anything Trump's canoodling with Russia did, though.
 
Chomsky said:
I gave you a 'like' for the body of your post, even though I disagree with your opening sentence which I bolded.

So what televised networks do you believe are not crap?
Click to expand...
The ones that aren't 24hr political newsreels. CNNi is actually pretty good if you can get it. I was stationed overseas for five years (3 in Europe, 2 in MENA) and actually found them, BBC, and Al Jazeera a refreshing change from our 24hour cable choices. I guess that's now just the hipster thing to say, but I'd recommend you check them out if you haven't already. The major networks, likewise, tend to do a little better with hard news. Of course, they only have to cover news for a few hours total each day. I suppose there's something about having to fill hours upon hours with "breaking news," as the 24 hour networks have to do, just makes them ****tier here. And we can start with the fact that they lean far too heavily on political developments and news. Watching some BBC special on an emerging textile industry in Ghana in the middle of the day may be boring, but it can be a nice break from the constant political reality show.

To be fair, CNN does have some cool specials. I was/am a huge Bourdain fan, and I've enjoyed their series covering the last several decades, the Kennedys, the presidential races, and several others.
 
slick said:
I'm sure these 12 Russians are shivering in their pants about these indictments. Didn't he indict 14 Russians
about a month ago, fat chance any of these two dozen or so will ever be prosecuted. I guess Mueller has to
pretend he's earning his keep.
Click to expand...

We do not have an extradition treaty with Russia, but those officers and indicted oligarchs will not be able to travel any country that we do have an extradition treaty with. and their ability to use Banks in any of those countries will be problematic for them as well . there is a price to be paid by these guys though it's far from being prosecuted
 
Glowpun said:
From what is on social media, with the indictments out on 12 senior Russian military people, given Trump's unusual stance on Putin, given Trump's insistence of a "witch hunt" on the indictments, what is the likelihood Trump has been compromised by Putin--perhaps financially and politically?

I noticed Fox News has made no mention of the indictments. Why?
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump intends to be traitor, he's just in the white house to enrich himself as much as possible, and doesn't care if his collaboration with thuggish despots subverts the security of this nation. We're collateral damage.
 
Kobie said:
Achieved through criminality.

The Comey fiasco ****ed Hillary much more than anything Trump's canoodling with Russia did, though.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with the bolded.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The ones that aren't 24hr political newsreels. CNNi is actually pretty good if you can get it. I was stationed overseas for five years (3 in Europe, 2 in MENA) and actually found them, BBC, and Al Jazeera a refreshing change from our 24hour cable choices. I guess that's now just the hipster thing to say, but I'd recommend you check them out if you haven't already. The major networks, likewise, tend to do a little better with hard news. Of course, they only have to cover news for a few hours total each day. I suppose there's something about having to fill hours upon hours with "breaking news," as the 24 hour networks have to do, just makes them ****tier here. And we can start with the fact that they lean far too heavily on political developments and news. Watching some BBC special on an emerging textile industry in Ghana in the middle of the day may be boring, but it can be a nice break from the constant political reality show.

To be fair, CNN does have some cool specials. I was/am a huge Bourdain fan, and I've enjoyed their series covering the last several decades, the Kennedys, the presidential races, and several others.
Click to expand...
I guess I enjoy the old three cable networks, 'cuz I am a political junkie.

I'm right with you on Bourdain. God, that was crushing. His work this year was so poignant and reflective. Very introspective. He just kept getting better & better, with this year being his best I think. He seemed at his peak. Then, bam. Wow.
 
Trump only knows one loyalty and that is to himself. He is a badly mentally disturbed extreme narcissist who does not know the difference between truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, patriotism and betrayal. If he had to sell out his country to advance his own interests, he is certainly capable of doing just that. Mr. Mueller will soon tell us if he did.
 
I said it a long time ago; "Trump is a Russian mole."

That is being generous ........
 
It would have been in Russia's best interest to have the traitor Hillary Clinton elected.All the uranium they would want.The Russians could have even hacked the nuclear codes off her laptop.
 
He's terrible at being a traitor being that EVERYTHING the man does benefits America.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The ones that aren't 24hr political newsreels. CNNi is actually pretty good if you can get it. I was stationed overseas for five years (3 in Europe, 2 in MENA) and actually found them, BBC, and Al Jazeera a refreshing change from our 24hour cable choices. I guess that's now just the hipster thing to say, but I'd recommend you check them out if you haven't already. The major networks, likewise, tend to do a little better with hard news. Of course, they only have to cover news for a few hours total each day. I suppose there's something about having to fill hours upon hours with "breaking news," as the 24 hour networks have to do, just makes them ****tier here. And we can start with the fact that they lean far too heavily on political developments and news. Watching some BBC special on an emerging textile industry in Ghana in the middle of the day may be boring, but it can be a nice break from the constant political reality show.

To be fair, CNN does have some cool specials. I was/am a huge Bourdain fan, and I've enjoyed their series covering the last several decades, the Kennedys, the presidential races, and several others.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of NPR, BBC and our "state run (OMFG!)" news, the CBC. If our government ever decided to take the CBC away from us, you'd hear a collective "out of our cold dead hands."

I agree on pretty much all of your news analysis. I firmly believe 24/7 news has ruined us.
 
gulfman said:
It would have been in Russia's best interest to have the traitor Hillary Clinton elected.All the uranium they would want.The Russians could have even hacked the nuclear codes off her laptop.
Click to expand...

But they didn't back her, they backed trump, maybe you should ask yourself Why.
 
Glowpun said:
From what is on social media, with the indictments out on 12 senior Russian military people, given Trump's unusual stance on Putin, given Trump's insistence of a "witch hunt" on the indictments, what is the likelihood Trump has been compromised by Putin--perhaps financially and politically?

I noticed Fox News has made no mention of the indictments. Why?
Click to expand...

Your post is non factual in every part.
 
Glowpun said:
From what is on social media, with the indictments out on 12 senior Russian military people, given Trump's unusual stance on Putin, given Trump's insistence of a "witch hunt" on the indictments, what is the likelihood Trump has been compromised by Putin--perhaps financially and politically?

I noticed Fox News has made no mention of the indictments. Why?
Click to expand...
IF Trump is a traitor (and I tend to think he's just a narcissist and conspiracy theorist), it's not because he has been compromised financially and politically. His incessant tweeting and trolling is not the hallmark of somebody under any kind of compulsion. It's because he actually thinks Russia does it right by letting rich, successful, "clever" people do whatever the f**k they want.

And if Trump is not a traitor, his support for Putin probably comes from his belief that Russia does it right by letting rich, successful, "clever" people do whatever the f**k they want.

As could not be plainer from his interactions with our allies and enemies, he is not a man that subscribes to Western ideology.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Fox News covered the indictments today. Hell, when I was watching they had Alberto Gonzalez on and even he was talking about how bad this is and how Trump should not be meeting with Putin alone. It was covered, at least to some extent.

As to the question in your thread title? Yes, he could be. Is he? Well, we're not there yet. But evidence more and more points in that direction. We just have to wait and see what else is revealed from the investigation.

I do want to state that a willing conspirator is different than a compromised conspirator, at least in my opinion (even if the law holds no such distinction). Self-preservation vs. self-improvement is a meaningful distinction.
Click to expand...

I think the "smoking gun" on this will be if Trump leans in to whisper in Putin's ear and it's picked up on hot mike.

You know... If he says something like he will have more "flexibility" after his next election.

Now THAT would reveal some real evidence of traitorous intent and behavior.
 
Greenbeard said:
We know the Russians were working to get him elected, we know many in his orbit (including his own son!) were aware of it and in some cases communicating with Russian emissaries (or, in the case of Flynn, promising them sanctions relief during the transition), and we know he's very publicly trying to cover their tracks and downplay their involvement even now. And as of today we know they started hacking the Dems the day Trump publicly requested they do so. Soon he'll have his secret meeting with Putin.

It doesn't look great.
Click to expand...

You say with certainty that they hacked the DNC computers the day after something, how could that be because they still don’t think the information couldn’t have hacked at the speed that they downloaded the information, it had to be an inside job with a thumb drive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
At least one Republican doesn't have his head up his ass.

DiAH_zyW4AYd5SR.jpg
Click to expand...

I disagree, possibly, with Sasse on one point:
All patriotic Americans should understand that Putin is not … the President's buddy
Click to expand...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The guy who wrestled up a Rebellion using his outstanding political skills as well as his outstanding communication skills as well as his outstanding understanding of America.

You're Welcome.
Click to expand...

syTrvok.jpg


You can't be for real can you? But then you think your owl avatar is a hawk so that's pretty ignorant in itself.
 
Chomsky said:
Possibly. Though it was minimal in terms of influence. However, I suppose you can make the argument that only very little minimal help was needed, due to the tightness of the three or four states that swung his way by a slim majority (WI, PA, MI).

And yeah, Hillary sucked. Big time.

But still the guy pulled it off, and it's going to go in the annals as an unbelievable upset and achievement.
Click to expand...

If the dems would have had any other candidate Trump would not have had a chance. Even my dog would have beat Trump.
 
gulfman said:
It would have been in Russia's best interest to have the traitor Hillary Clinton elected.All the uranium they would want.The Russians could have even hacked the nuclear codes off her laptop.
Click to expand...

You might want to do some simple research. Your uranium argument was debunked a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom