Both of them are mediocre at best for working people.

Are you party uber allies?

Blind allegiance is a sign of low IQ.

Just pointing to certain features of people's learning difficulties.

Anti DLCer to the bone and I make no apologies for it.

Some people don't care or they refuse to hold accountable our Party or elected leaders. I rather not be in that line.

our Dem nominees for NYC mayor in 2001, and 2005?

Did you support the Dem nominee against Bloomberg in 2009?

Were I to vote in NYC would be double voting and that is illegal.

Had I been a NYC voter, I would have voted for the democratic candidate, but of course, that doesn't stop me from loving the Great Equalizer Meek Mike on his great stance against the NRA and guns.

I am a faithful follower of the guidelines of this site.
Supporting the vote in general elections of any and all democratic candidates in offices lower than the Presidential race, except in the rare instances when the democratic line is empty, or the democratic candidate cannot win and then and only then is the third party vote acceptable.

Never of course in a Presidential election where 270 is only divisiable by two.

And where in 2000, Ralph Nader conspired either unknowingly or knowingly to throw the election to the republican candidate as New Hampshire(with those 4 electoral votes) proved.

Had Gore got those 4, he would have gotten 270, and Florida then would have been irrelevant.

10 million less voters in 2000 than any comparatable election.
Meaning they stayed home beliving the dreck out of Nader's mouth about both parties being one and the same.

A lie of coures proven by SCOTUS time and again.

The 2-party sham-o-rama claims another victim. Are the Democrats better than the Republicans on a majority of issues? Yes, yes they are, but this is only a surface-glance view.

There are true warrior progressives in the Democratic (Bernie Sanders is a national treasure) Party, but at the end of the day, when viewing the long-wave impact on the foundational issues of runious bankster systemic control, debt, empiric wars, erosion of civil liberties, striping-mining of the vast bulk of US industrial capacity, etc etc, both parties (in the totality of their combined governmental outcomes), dine at the same table.

What happened to your critical thinking skills?

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, and evil will triumph when good men and women do nothing but march to any tune played, as long as the cacophony comes out from under the colours of their 'sides' banner.

He caucuses with Democrats, but is a Socialist.

There are many progressive Democrats in both houses, most people here ignore them because that doesn't fit into "They All Suck!" narrative.

"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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Treason is not giving aid or comfort or weakening the country in some abstract way. It has to be an act of war.

The Bush crime family declared war on the Constitution without uttering a word

The majority conduct of U.S. polititicians has been against the best interests of the welfare of U.S. citizens. I call this an "act of war".

Some people in power in the United States are against us.

Corruption is pretty bad and I make no excuses for it, but it isn't treason.

In today's political atmosphere, my family, my children, and my grandchildren are less likely to survive. I call that "war".

It is black and white.

Your post makes it clear.

Our president is one of them.

Seriously, I think it is limited to war and battlefields. Maybe people do a lot of bad things, but the term treason should not be thrown around to mean anything we don't agree with, even if it is really bad. Political disagreement is not enough.

Our Earth has been partitioned at the whim by those who rule. Geographical boundaries no longer exist.

remember "None Dare Call It Treason"-- John Stormer's anti-Communist screed so beloved by the more unhinged Goldwater supporters? What if they came back in force and tried again to call us traitors? And this time they win?

This title, btw, came from an olde John Harrington rhyme:

“Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” The mind of a wingnut is truly bizarre-- Stormer was implying that American "communism" worked, so we're afraid to call it the demon that it is.

FWIW, your idea isn't all that new but has an excellent pedigree as the estimable Cicero thought along the same lines:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero

In practice, though, such thinking didn't make much of a mark in Cicero's time, either.

I'm honestly curious. A "no" would make "police actions" and "authorizations of the use of military force" one hell of a lot more tempting to exploit...

and tried to make him and his ilk demonic terrorists instead of prosecuting under enough other laws we have against murder and blowing things up? Treason was hardly brought up with all the other charges flying around.

I remember once hearing a Federal judge talking about the "heniousness rule"-- if a crime is truly abhorrent, he ain't gonna walk and a way will be found to fry his ass.

As far as exploiting goes, I'm not sure the few Americans working violently for a foreign power are looking for loopholes.

Hail Cicero!
Nevertheless, times have changed - politics are global -the enemies aren't as easy to identify.

powerful families and clans which worked pretty much the same way. And "treason" was often a little more obvious, as Julius found about Brutus.

Trade was as important in those days as it is now-- they just didn't have the technology we have, and were more likely to invade and conquer than make a deal.

Multimational corporations have usurped the power of the U.S. Our elected officials in Washington facilitated the weakening of our country.
They have continued to vote in favor of their benefactors. our citizens continue to become less-able to survive.

he was considered a populist, but started out as a country lawyer representing creditors and landowners collecting debts and forcing evictions. Later on he closed down the US Bank, but that just led to the crisis of 1837 and it took years to get over it. Worse, he was responsible for the Trail of Tears when he threw the Cherokees out of Georgia when gold was found on their land. Populist my ass-- money talked.

And then we had the railroads and the robber barons at the turn of the century who managed to wash their hands of the Jonestown flood and get us into WWI so they could make a few bucks. That era lasted until WWII when they still made plenty of money, but had a harder time stealing it.

So, it was a small window between WWII and the Truman years to about Johnson's tenure that American politics and industry seemed to be following a higher path. They weren't, really, but it looked that way.

Here we are in a new century where money is acting like it always has-- to get more. The fundamental problem with the American economy appears to be that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much. And, I would add the observation that so many don't have a problem with the rich because they themselves hope to be rich one day. Very few have a great ambition to be poor.

What to do about it? Not much we can without a groundswell of opposition to this nonsense. They have the ability to buy candidates and pay for the propaganda, so we have to stop whining about it and find a way to work smarter. Get the country to simply say "bullshit" to this sort of thing.

On PBS' "Makers" they did a good piece on Phyllis Schlafly who they infer almost singlehandedly killed the ERA because she was a brilliant propagandist who managed to turn half the women in the country against the other half. We need our own Schlafly who can drive the masses to work together.

Nobody cares what somebody can imagine words might mean when they have perfectly sensible meanings.

Treason is not about weakening the United States.

Treason is about substantially and purposefully assisting the enemy in a WAR.

And that means WAR... not the war on drugs, or the war on poverty.

War.

Treason does not mean being a bad American.

And since the death penalty is specified for Treason in the Constitution, these ever-present, "Here's what I think treason means, despite it obviously not meaning this" threads are de facto suggestions that whoever it is that is offending the OP writer ought to be put to death.

Anything that will promote understanding is good - even if the intent is ambiguous.

Also, when the free trade laws and treaties you so object to were written, the balance of trade in most sectors was in the favor of US-based corporations. It still is in Trade In Services. It's really a lack of a national industrial policy -- and laws that might regulate where corporations invest and how they repatriate profits -- that has caused real problems, and that is the source of the imbalance in trade and deficit, as well as the offshoring of so many jobs that were formerly performed inside the U.S.

If you have to, attack the real problem - it's the internal policies of U.S.-based multinational corporations. Those business decisions were made in boardrooms in the U.S., in most cases a decade or more ago. That's where you have to apply pressure -- accusing people of High Treason may feel good, but it doesn't attack the problem at its real source.

it's the internal policies of U.S.-based multinational corporations."

Thank you. I was hoping this would have been assumed. Our Earth no longer has international boundaries. Those who have the most capital rule.

distribution for the life of the weapons -- before, during or after our 'wars.' These very weapons have been used against Americans. All secret weapons deals involving American weapons manufacturers should result in the shutdown of the dealers and the American manufacturers. Merchants of death must be pro-life when it comes to their fellow citizens and country, and they must be accountable for their product and whose hands they fall into. Stupidity about 'dealers', 'shipping,' or international laws is never a defense.

As a Miami-Dade County resident, this action compelled me to get involved.

If any of ya'll have the curiosity, Norman Goldman has covered the treason angle exhaustively. Very interesting angles and opinions, unfortunately non that seems to stick.



-p

Found out he's a "Progressive". Plan to notice what he says in the future.

He claims to be more independent cause he'll call out dirty Dems too. He's a retired lawyer and explains some of the legal ramifications of legislation in simple easy to understand jargon. He's a good guy on the inside too. Do check him out if you have a chance.



-p

unlike most of our current elected officials who reflect the demands of corporate donors.

definition. The Constitution defines it for the United States, and very clearly. What you are talking about is not treason. Outsourcing jobs is not treason. Treason involves war and the betrayal of the United States during war. Nothing else fits the Constitutional definition.

Please read what it says there. All of what it says.

Very little latitude should be given to the actual legal definition.