WebsterMark wrote on 05/15/25 at 09:41:38:



Nonsense. A simple search:

“journalists who donate to political campaigns overwhelmingly favor Democrats, with 90–96% of contributions going to Democratic candidates or causes in recent cycles (2016, 2020), compared to 65–87% in earlier cycles (2004–2010). Key studies report $382,000 (96%) for Clinton in 2016 and $110,000 (90%+) for Democrats in 2020.” [/quote]


journalists are private citizens who can donate to who they want
you WERE talking about news outlets which there are a fairly equal number on each side of center
you would make a good 3 card monty dealer

I'm pretty sure that 47 is the GOP's version of Tom Horn. 47 should pay attention to what happened to ol' Tom after he'd killed all the rustlers...

Serowbot wrote on 05/15/25 at 11:03:26:


Only 23? He needs to step up his game.

Serowbot wrote on 05/15/25 at 15:49:19:


You’ve already agreed a President or Vice President can exploit his office for money so quiet down.

MnSpring wrote on 05/15/25 at 16:03:48:

Try buying car with a 145%, %80, %30, tariff

... and no... I have never in my life payed 18% interest
I make interest, I don't pay it
Won't be buying a car any time soon either
See how that boosts the economy, Donny

It IS treason to deport ANY person without due process, or ANY US citizen.

 No it isn't.  Countering a poor argument for treason by providing an equally poor argument does no good.

 Treason is defined as the act of betraying one's country, typically by engaging in war or conspiracy against it.  Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, specifically refers to "levying war against the United States or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".  Deporting any human without due process violates the constitutional rights to fair legal proceedings - that is not treason by definition or context of the US Constitution or historical applied US case law.

 Tossing "treason" onto lack of due process is no different than humans tossing "unconstitutional" onto any court ruling they don't like.

It's treason to oppose the law set forth in the Constitution, since that is actively betraying the country.

 No SCOTUS ruling has ever agreed with that.  This is nothing more than ignoring every legal precedent and ruling for treason so you can claim treason in your own argument.

 Many violations of the US Constitution do not qualify as treason.  All features must apply.  Many humans have their Constitutional rights violated each day - these are not treasonous acts.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-1/ALDE_00013524/

 You ask "And what is "adhering to their Enemies", if not confiding with Putin, Kim Jong Un, an Arab murderer, terrorists, both foreign and domestic, and attacking US citizens?"  but intentionally left out: giving them Aid and Comfort.

 The SCOTUS has specifically answered that in CRAMER v. UNITED STATES , 325 U.S. 1.  Restrictions on due process do not qualify as adherence to foreign entity, and to meet the Treason standard one must adhere AND provide Aid and Comfort - which is again defined.

 To convict someone of the crime of treason for giving aid or comfort to an enemy, the government must prove two elements:  
Adherence or loyalty to an enemy of the United States, and Providing aid or comfort to the enemy.

 SCOTUS rulings indicate: The aid or comfort must assist the enemy in some essential way to assist in their plan or design to commit a treasonous act.

 Your argument excludes the Constitutional interpretation of Treason in entirety and is just cherry-picking one section.