Is Donald Trump a traitor? His path to the White House suggests a pattern of profound disloyalty

[homersapien 11,415]

There's a word for someone who colludes with a foreign power to subvert democracy and overthrow political norms

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Donald Trump urged a foreign power, Russia, to interfere in the American election in order to undermine his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Russia complied. The American intelligence community, including the CIA and FBI, has reached a “strong consensus” that the Russians interfered with the presidential election in order to help Donald Trump win.

It has also been reported that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally directed this espionage operation. So serious was Russian interference in the American presidential election that the Obama administration warned Putin that it was tantamount to “armed conflict.”

Republican leaders in Congress were briefed on Russia’s interference in the presidential election and how it was targeted at elevating Trump and hurting Clinton. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other congressional Republicans chose to block any public discussion of these findings. In what could be construed as a quid pro quo, McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, has been selected by President-elect Trump for a cabinet position in his administration.

Donald Trump’s flirtations with Russia and Vladimir Trump are part of a broader pattern of reckless and irresponsible behavior. Trump has numerous conflicts of financial interest that would appear to violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. His sons, Eric and Donald Jr., were involved in a scheme (since withdrawn) that looked a lot like an attempt to sell access to his administration through million-dollar “charity” donations. Trump has threatened to violate the First Amendment by suppressing freedom of the press, has encouraged violence against Hillary Clinton and those he deemed his enemies, has suggested he would not respect the outcome of the election if he lost, and has promoted people widely regarded as white supremacists or white nationalists to senior positions in his administration. Donald Trump has also selected key advisers and cabinet level officials who have close personal and financial relationships with Russian leaders in banking, finance and government.

The sum total of these facts leads to a very troubling conclusion.

President-elect Donald Trump is a traitor. As suggested by Harvard University professor John Shattuck in the Boston Globe, Trump’s actions may approach the legal definition of treason as defined by United States federal law.

Members of the Republican Party who knew about Russia’s efforts to interfere with the presidential election and chose to suppress or block such information, for fear of hurting their candidate’s chances, are also traitors.

In light of Russia’s interference with the presidential election, Republicans and others who voted for and support Donald Trump are also traitors, at least to the degree that they do not now work against and denounce him.

Reconciling Donald Trump’s traitorous behavior with how Republicans and conservatives view themselves as the party of “patriotism” and “national security” is a puzzle of sorts. How do they resolve this state of cognitive dissonance?

Writing about Oscar Wilde, David Friedman observed that a celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous. This logic applies to the Republican Party and how it has presented itself in regards to national security. For example, this tautology ignores the fact that the Cold War was not won by one president — certainly not by Ronald Reagan, a figure who has been undeservedly elevated to sainthood in American political culture — but because of a continuity in foreign policy across both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Republican claim that theirs is the party of national security and that they are better than Democrats at “keeping America safe” is also gutted by the legacy of 9/11 and George W. Bush’s imperial misadventures in the Middle East, which taken together constitute one of the greatest foreign policy failures in the history of the country.

Trump voters and other American conservatives have been subjected to a several decades-long disinformation and propaganda campaign, led by Fox News and the broader right-wing news-entertainment media. This has created an alternate reality that exists separate and apart from the empirical, fact-based world. As shown by recent public opinion surveys, Donald Trump supporters hold many false and bizarre beliefs. As summarized in a recent essay by Salon’s Bob Cesca:

• 40 percent of Trump voters insist that he won the national popular vote.
• 60 percent of Trump voters think that Hillary Clinton received millions of illegal votes.
• 73 percent of Trump voters believe that George Soros is paying anti-Trump protesters.
• 29 percent of Trump voters don’t think California votes should be allowed to count in the national popular vote.
• 67 percent of Trump voters think the unemployment rate went up under President Obama. Only 20 percent accurately believe it went down.
• 39 percent of Trump voters think the stock market went down under Obama. And 19 percent are unsure.
• 14 percent of Trump voters think Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run out of a Washington pizzeria. Another 32 percent aren’t sure one way or another. Only 54 percent are certain that Pizzagate is a myth.

Conservatism is a type of political religion and cult; Donald Trump is now the leader of that cult.

As a group, in many regards American voters are not very sophisticated. They also do not have a schema for consistently and logically understanding and processing complex political events and issues. Because of the influence of corporate money and advertising (Trump reportedly received the equivalent of $5 billion in free advertising during the presidential campaign), the Fourth Estate has largely failed to fulfill its watchdog function or to educate the American people so that they can make informed and intelligent decisions about their leaders. A controversial new book by political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels suggests that voters are non-deliberative, casting their ballots based largely on prior assumptions and party loyalty and twisting the facts to fit their beliefs.

Republican-controlled states in the South and the Midwest also host a disproportionate number of military bases. Military officers also tend to identify as Republicans and to be more conservative. These two factors combine to give immediate credibility — however incorrect and superficial it may be — to the claim that Republicans are “stronger” on national defense.

Extreme political polarization, increasing authoritarianism and what is known as “negative partisanship” have also encouraged Republican voters to dramatically shift their attitudes towards Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Writing at the National Review, David French explains:

After weeks of WikiLeaks’ releases and months of Trump apologetics for Russia’s dictator, the Republicans nonetheless view Putin more favorably than their own president. Between 2014 and today, Putin’s approval ratings with Republicans have almost quadrupled, from 10 percent to 37 percent. His net negative rating is a mere ten points. By contrast, the GOP net negative rating for Barack Obama is a whopping 64 points. Across the Web, “conservatives” fill Twitter timelines and comment boards with pro-Putin comments. Some of this is Astroturfed straight from Russia. Much of it is not. “At least WikiLeaks is doing what the mainstream media won’t” (as if it’s the media’s job to hack computers). “Putin disrespects Obama, not the United States.” “Well, at least Putin hates Islamic terrorists” (well, other than his close Iranian allies, the world’s leading state supporter of Islamic terrorism). We are seeing the terrible result of what the Pew Foundation has documented as negative partisanship. Americans dislike the opposing political party more than they like their own tribe. They’re willing to believe the worst possible things about their political opponents.

These are all important explanations for how Republicans and conservatives can rationalize their support of Donald Trump and his traitorous behavior with Russia. But they explicitly exclude another powerful force: the way(s) that nationalism, sexism and racism influence American politics more generally, and conservatives specifically.

Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine if Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat had encouraged Russia to interfere with the election to undermine the process in order to favor their candidacy.

Given how the Republican Party and its news entertainment media flew into a collective conspiratorial frenzy over Hillary Clinton’s “classified emails” and a mysterious computer server, the outcome would have been something close to a literal witch hunt — at the least demands for an investigation, and at most, hysterical cries that a Russian-led coup or revolution had taken place. This difference in outcomes is more than a function of mere partisanship but rather a signal to deep divergences in political values and beliefs about belonging, community and citizenship in American society.

Obama or any other person of color would likely have been immediately and irrevocably delegitimized by the charges facing Donald Trump. From before the founding of the republic to the present, and despite their military and other public service, the loyalty of black and brown people in America is perpetually suspect.

Another factor here is that the American nation-state is gendered. Conservatives and right-wingers are engaged in a masculine, nationalist political project. Hillary Clinton was viewed as “weak” and “too emotional” because she is a woman. Clinton’s hypothetical alliance with Putin would have been seen as proof of those “deficits,” and such a scandal would be used to sexualize and demean her.

Since at least the Cold War, Republicans and their media have savaged Democrats, liberals and progressives as “weak.” The are not “real Americans”; they are “cowards” or “sissies,” “Commies” or “traitors.” If Russia and Vladimir Putin had interfered to aid a Democratic candidate, it would be presented by Republicans as final proof that Democrats are fundamentally disloyal to America.

But because Donald Trump is a white male conservative his loyalty and patriotism are viewed by many Americans as a given. This is a manifestation of white male privilege in action and an example of how racism can damage the safety and security of the United States.

During the age of Obama, the Republican Party completed its devolution into a radical and revanchist organization that aimed to overthrow the standing norms and consensus politics that have governed the United States since at least World War II. Trump and the Republicans are now following through on this in ways heretofore unimaginable. They have chosen partisanship over patriotism in their support of the authoritarian Trump and his apparent foreign sponsor, Vladimir Putin. The Russians wanted to undermine and damage one of America’s most sacred democratic institutions. Donald Trump and his party aided and abetted them.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/22/is-donald-trump-a-traitor-his-path-to-the-white-house-suggests-a-pattern-of-profound-disloyalty/

[AFTiger 282]

On the other hand, this entire article by Salon is pathetic BS.

[homersapien 11,415]

30 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

On the other hand, this entire article by Salon is pathetic BS.

Sometimes the truth can be hard to handle.  Much easier to simply deny it, huh?

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

Homer it is one thing to disagree with somebodies policies but to call them a Traitor or as some have to compare him to Adolph Hitler you lose all credibility.  It is similar to the way some people on the right attacked Barack Obama. Even if you have some valid reasons for disagreeing with somebody as soon as you try to do say the person is a Traitor or a Nazi you have lost the argument.

As to large numbers of the Republican voters being uninformed that is a sad truth the sad part is I have read similar articles on the Democratic voters and their misconceptions. While it would be nice to think all voters are analytical and weigh all the options before voting I think you will find that is a small subset of voters for many it is we have always voted Republican or Democratic or a gut feeling.

As for the media on the right savaging the Democrats probably true just as the media on the left has savaged the Republicans. Most of the article is spurious because it does not present similar facts on the other side.  It is an Editorial and a reflection of that person's biases just as I have seen similar articles from sources like Breitbart trying to prove how bad the Democrats are.

[homersapien 11,415]

50 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Homer it is one thing to disagree with somebodies policies but to call them a Traitor or as some have to compare him to Adolph Hitler you lose all credibility.  It is similar to the way some people on the right attacked Barack Obama. Even if you have some valid reasons for disagreeing with somebody as soon as you try to do say the person is a Traitor or a Nazi you have lost the argument.

As to large numbers of the Republican voters being uninformed that is a sad truth the sad part is I have read similar articles on the Democratic voters and their misconceptions. While it would be nice to think all voters are analytical and weigh all the options before voting I think you will find that is a small subset of voters for many it is we have always voted Republican or Democratic or a gut feeling.

As for the media on the right savaging the Democrats probably true just as the media on the left has savaged the Republicans. Most of the article is spurious because it does not present similar facts on the other side.  It is an Editorial and a reflection of that person's biases just as I have seen similar articles from sources like Breitbart trying to prove how bad the Democrats are.

Yet, the facts are what they are.  I think he's a narcissistic psychopath.  Being sworn in as POTUS will not change that. 

Let's just wait and see who's right about this.

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yet, the facts are what they are.  I think he's a narcissistic psychopath.  Being sworn in as POTUS will not change that.

Let's just wait and see who's right about this.

Trump may turn out to be a great President or a horrible President or something in between. I have real issues with Trump just as I did with Hillary. My point was picking an article accusing him of being a traitor to his country that made no attempt to be balanced was my gripe. I have the same gripe when somebody posts this type of article from the right.  To be a Traitor to your country is usually something like passing military secrets to our enemies or a soldier who leaves his post and joins the other side. I have no problem with you not liking Trump and disagreeing with Trump but over last few years I have seen you go after people for attacking Obama in the same way you are attacking Trump. People who have said Obama was a Muslim or didn't love this country. I have disagreed with many of Obama's policies but I always thought that he believed in his policies and thought it was best for the country I just thought he was wrong. I was hoping you would be better than the people who attacked Obama in that way.

[homersapien 11,415]

21 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Trump may turn out to be a great President or a horrible President or something in between. I have real issues with Trump just as I did with Hillary. My point was picking an article accusing him of being a traitor to his country that made no attempt to be balanced was my gripe. I have the same gripe when somebody posts this type of article from the right.  To be a Traitor to your country is usually something like passing military secrets to our enemies or a soldier who leaves his post and joins the other side. I have no problem with you not liking Trump and disagreeing with Trump but over last few years I have seen you go after people for attacking Obama in the same way you are attacking Trump. People who have said Obama was a Muslim or didn't love this country. I have disagreed with many of Obama's policies but I always thought that he believed in his policies and thought it was best for the country I just thought he was wrong. I was hoping you would be better than the people who attacked Obama in that way.

First, the article didn't claim anything.  It simply pointed out Trump's behavior.  Likewise, I am simply pointing out and commenting on his behavior.  That's not "attacking" him, that's holding him accountable.

I don't think he's a traitor, but I don't know that he isn't.  I think he will say or do anything for personal gain, including using the office of the presidency.  That comes pretty damn close to being a traitor in my book.  Certainly close enough to discuss the possibility.

If you want to point out something in the article that's false, please proceed.  If you want to point out an illogical conclusion from the article, please proceed.  It is what it is.

But it's disingenuous to make a direct comparison of  holding Trump accountable for his behavior to accusations grounded on Obama's earlier experiences with Islam, or his middle name (for example).  There is no equivalency.  

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, the article didn't claim anything.  It simply pointed out Trump's behavior.  Likewise, I am simply pointing out and commenting on his behavior.  That's not "attacking" him, that's holding him accountable.

I don't think he's a traitor, but I don't know that he isn't.  I think he will say or do anything for personal gain, including using the office of the presidency.  That comes pretty damn close to being a traitor in my book.  Certainly close enough to discuss the possibility.

If you want to point out something in the article that's false, please proceed.  If you want to point out an illogical conclusion from the article, please proceed.  It is what it is.

But it's disingenuous to make a direct comparison of  holding Trump accountable for his behavior to accusations that derived from Obama's earlier experience with Islam, or his middle name (for example).  There is no equivalency.  

The article was not false it was slanted. A person who wants to do a hit piece uses real information to prove their point. It is easy to only show one side to prove you are right it is much harder to be balanced and prove it. The fact that it was not balanced is why it was false. Showing how many Republican voters who were uninformed without showing how many Democratic voters were uninformed is slanting the article. Talking about how the media on the right tries to demonize the Democrats without mentioning how the media on the left does the same thing to Republicans is slanting the article. The title you give to your Topic Is Donald Trump a Traitor is inflammatory you are branding him a Traitor without saying it.

You are the one who is disingenuous if you can't see the same pattern in what you have been doing to Trump as some posters on the right did to Obama.  At one time every other article in the political arena was AURaptor attacking Obama now it is you attacking Trump in every other article in the political arena  and he hasn't even taken office or passed an executive order you disagree with yet.

Please wait until he does something heinous while in his official capacity then attack what he does. I might even agree with you at the time.  

[homersapien 11,415]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

The article was not false it was slanted. A person who wants to do a hit piece uses real information to prove their point. It is easy to only show one side to prove you are right it is much harder to be balanced and prove it. The fact that it was not balanced is why it was false. Showing how many Republican voters who were uninformed without showing how many Democratic voters were uninformed is slanting the article. Talking about how the media on the right tries to demonize the Democrats without mentioning how the media on the left does the same thing to Republicans is slanting the article. The title you give to your Topic Is Donald Trump a Traitor is inflammatory you are branding him a Traitor without saying it.

You are the one who is disingenuous if you can't see the same pattern in what you have been doing to Trump as some posters on the right did to Obama.  At one time every other article in the political arena was AURaptor attacking Obama now it is you attacking Trump in every other article in the political arena  and he hasn't even taken office or passed an executive order you disagree with yet.

Please wait until he does something heinous while in his official capacity then attack what he does. I might even agree with you at the time.  

If you really cannot see substantive differences between Trump and Obama in terms of temperament and behavior there's really not much I can add to this discussion.

To take offense from people merely pointing out that behavior and criticizing it is to normalize it.  It's the ultimate political correctness.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

AURaptor attacking Obama now it is you attacking Trump

Striking similarities.

[homersapien 11,415]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Striking similarities.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Merry Christmas Homes!!!

[TheBlueVue 177]

On 12/22/2016 at 11:07 AM, homersapien said:

Sometimes the truth can be hard to handle.  Much easier to simply deny it, huh?

hardly.... I have never enjoyed anything as much as I have enjoyed the left's melt since Trump mopped the floor with Hillary. Its has been absolutely divine and the next 8 years are going to be awesome to witness! 

[homersapien 11,415]

8 years?  

[quietfan 233]

9 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

hardly.... I have never enjoyed anything as much as I have enjoyed the left's melt since Trump mopped the floor with Hillary. 

Admittedly the term 'mopped the floor with' is not rigidly defined and means different things to different people.  But I usually take that to mean a substantial victory, winning by a significantly larger than average lead, or crushing your opponent.

I don't see how losing the popular vote by 2.5+ million, while scoring the 4th smallest* Electoral College margin of victory since 1960 (with only a 74 EC vote difference), is 'mopping the floor' with anyone.  

Trump won, I agree. But "mopped the floor with Hillary"?

 

[*The only closer E.C. margins since 1960: Bush in 2004 with a 35 EC margin,  Bush in 2000 with only 5 EC votes difference, and Carter in '76 with a 57 vote margin. Even Kennedy in 1960, in the closest election between 1916 and 1976, got 84 more EC votes than Nixon, despite having fellow Democrat Harry Byrd steal away 15 EC votes. "Mopping the floor", to me, would be like LBJ's 434 margin in 1964, Reagan in 1980 (440 vote win) or 1984 (512 margin).  If Trump 'mopped the floor' in the Electoral College, then Obama must have really mopped up with his 192 and 126 vote margins in '08 and '12, respectively.  http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/  ]

 

[Mikey 16,672]

Of course Trump is a traitor. He also rapes babies, burns down orphanages and is hoarding vials of Ebola virus for some as yet to be determined evil use. Just ask any butt-hurt Dem you might encounter.

[AFTiger 282]

Ah the fantasy world of liberals. So right all of the time, just ask one. Such arrogant stupidity.

[homersapien 11,415]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

Of course Trump is a traitor. He also rapes babies, burns down orphanages and is hoarding vials of Ebola virus for some as yet to be determined evil use. Just ask any butt-hurt Dem you might encounter.

Very clever. 

"butt hurt" was particularly witty and original.

[homersapien 11,415]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Ah the fantasy world of liberals. So right all of the time, just ask one. Such arrogant stupidity.

Baaaaaaaa!

 

[TexasTiger 12,975]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

Of course Trump is a traitor. He also rapes babies, burns down orphanages and is hoarding vials of Ebola virus for some as yet to be determined evil use. Just ask any butt-hurt Dem you might encounter.

Deflect with absurdity-- easier than thinking.

[TheBlueVue 177]

14 hours ago, quietfan said:

Admittedly the term 'mopped the floor with' is not rigidly defined and means different things to different people.  But I usually take that to mean a substantial victory, winning by a significantly larger than average lead, or crushing your opponent.

I don't see how losing the popular vote by 2.5+ million, while scoring the 4th smallest* Electoral College margin of victory since 1960 (with only a 74 EC vote difference), is 'mopping the floor' with anyone.  

Trump won, I agree. But "mopped the floor with Hillary"?

 

[*The only closer E.C. margins since 1960: Bush in 2004 with a 35 EC margin,  Bush in 2000 with only 5 EC votes difference, and Carter in '76 with a 57 vote margin. Even Kennedy in 1960, in the closest election between 1916 and 1976, got 84 more EC votes than Nixon, despite having fellow Democrat Harry Byrd steal away 15 EC votes. "Mopping the floor", to me, would be like LBJ's 434 margin in 1964, Reagan in 1980 (440 vote win) or 1984 (512 margin).  If Trump 'mopped the floor' in the Electoral College, then Obama must have really mopped up with his 192 and 126 vote margins in '08 and '12, respectively.  http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/  ]

 

BHO won the 2 previous elections...that was THEN, this is NOW. 

Yep, mopped the floor with Hillary. I chose those words because they posted in here quite often during the run up to the election that "Hillary was mopping the floor with Trump"....how'd that work out?

Trump won 30 states  = 60%. You can prattle on ad nauseum about other electoral margins and Hillary winning California by over 4 million votes but its really immaterial, inconsequential and irrelevant because winning 60% of states easily qualifies as a resounding victory especially given the incessant droning by the media that there was "simply no pathway to 270 for Trump".

Any win given the hurdles he had to clear is really quite impressive. Nobody had him winning and just about every conceivable constituency was clearly against.... The media, Hollywood, academia, multinational banks and corporations, the green mafia,  every ethnic minority, the gay, trans and sexually ambiguous as well as militant feminists, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals and, there's a super-abundance of them, not to mention, most of the republican party were ALL against him. So, you can quibble with the language if you wish but there has never been a candidate in history to overcome what DJT overcame to win.

[homersapien 11,415]

52 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

BHO won the 2 previous elections...that was THEN, this is NOW. 

Yep, mopped the floor with Hillary. I chose those words because they posted in here quite often during the run up to the election that "Hillary was mopping the floor with Trump"....how'd that work out?

Trump won 30 states  = 60%. You can prattle on ad nauseum about other electoral margins and Hillary winning California by over 4 million votes but its really immaterial, inconsequential and irrelevant because winning 60% of states easily qualifies as a resounding victory especially given the incessant droning by the media that there was "simply no pathway to 270 for Trump".

Any win given the hurdles he had to clear is really quite impressive. Nobody had him winning and just about every conceivable constituency was clearly against.... The media, Hollywood, academia, multinational banks and corporations, the green mafia,  every ethnic minority, the gay, trans and sexually ambiguous as well as militant feminists, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals and, there's a super-abundance of them, not to mention, most of the republican party were ALL against him. So, you can quibble with the language if you wish but there has never been a candidate in history to overcome what DJT overcame to win.

The 'force' is strong with this one.  

[TexasTiger 12,975]

14 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

BHO won the 2 previous elections...that was THEN, this is NOW. 

Yep, mopped the floor with Hillary. I chose those words because they posted in here quite often during the run up to the election that "Hillary was mopping the floor with Trump"....how'd that work out?

Trump won 30 states  = 60%. You can prattle on ad nauseum about other electoral margins and Hillary winning California by over 4 million votes but its really immaterial, inconsequential and irrelevant because winning 60% of states easily qualifies as a resounding victory especially given the incessant droning by the media that there was "simply no pathway to 270 for Trump".

Any win given the hurdles he had to clear is really quite impressive. Nobody had him winning and just about every conceivable constituency was clearly against.... The media, Hollywood, academia, multinational banks and corporations, the green mafia,  every ethnic minority, the gay, trans and sexually ambiguous as well as militant feminists, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals and, there's a super-abundance of them, not to mention, most of the republican party were ALL against him. So, you can quibble with the language if you wish but there has never been a candidate in history to overcome what DJT overcame to win.

Blue Logic-- every group he hates opposed Trump so the victory was a landslide.

[cptau 169]

Salon?   Why is anyone reading it anymore?

Even Politico reports it is not what it was.  http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551