Are Trump and his Congressional Sycophants Traitors?

[Chicks]

The Trump First Doctrine

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tru...ine-1531781061

Even the editorial board of the conservative WSJ understands that Donny committed treason. Wake up, Whell, you are being held captive by a cult.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

The Trump First Doctrine

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tru...ine-1531781061

Even the editorial board of the conservative WSJ understands that Donny committed treason. Wake up, Whell, you are being held captive by a cult.

I'm paywalled for that particular article. That said, I suspect the WSJ, who has never been a fan of the Trump presidency, probably didn't go so far as to use the word "treason" in the article you posted. As far as I know, that word is reserved to the truly rabid Never Trumpers, or leftist whack jobs. I'm sure you know the type.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm paywalled for that particular article. That said, I suspect the WSJ, who has never been a fan of the Trump presidency, probably didn't go so far as to use the word "treason" in the article you posted. As far as I know, that word is reserved to the truly rabid Never Trumpers, or leftist whack jobs. I'm sure you know the type.

Mr. Trump marched through Europe with more swagger than strategy. His diplomacy is personal, rooted in instinct and impulse, and he treats other leaders above all on how much they praise Donald J. Trump. He says what pops into his head to shock but then disavows it if there’s a backlash. He criticizes institutions and policies to grab headlines but then claims victory no matter the outcome... Monday’s joint press conference was a personal and national embarrassment. On stage with the dictator whose election meddling has done so much harm to his Presidency, Mr. Trump couldn’t even bring himself to say he believed his own intelligence advisers like Dan Coats over the Russian strongman.

And yes, the WSJ is pro-Trump. Just read Kimberly Strassel's pieces on their Op-Ed page. She's at least as big a Trump cultist as you are. Whether or not they used the word "treason," they certainly made the argument that his behavior gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" (the constitutional definition of treason). It's sad that it's gotten to the point that a valid argument can be made that the president is treasonous and the only defense of him boils down to a semantic argument.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And yes, the WSJ is pro-Trump.

Uh no, not so much.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/22/med...-donald-trump/

The Wall Street Journal editorial board's blistering rebuke of Donald Trump on Tuesday was only the latest chapter in an antagonistic relationship between the president and a usual standard-bearer of conservative media.
Throughout Trump's campaign and into his young presidency, the Journal's editorial writers have repeatedly cast a wary eye. They have questioned his economic acumen and temperament, and even suggested at one point that the Republican Party might have to write Trump off in order to salvage its prospects in other races.

Almost exactly one year ago, the editorial board found itself ensnared in a public feud with Trump after questioning his chances of winning the general election. Trump called the writers "dummies"; the editorial board responded by saying, "The truth hurts."

You're like the weather forecasters here in MI. You're wrong far more than you're right, but it just doesn't matter to you and you keep forging ahead with your inaccuracies.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

You're like the weather forecasters here in MI. You're wrong far more than you're right, but it just doesn't matter to you and you keep forging ahead with your inaccuracies.

Perfect description of you.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh no, not so much.

Read Kimberly Strassel. She's every bit the wingnut, conspiracy theorist Trump cultist you are. Take a look at just the titles and synopses of her articles for the WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/news/author/5472

Characterizing the WSJ as anti-Trump is relative. Just because they don't write only puff pieces like Fox or Breitbart doesn't make them anti-Trump. They support him but don't want to appear as slavishly sycophantic as you. I guess you didn't follow the story of (Pulitzer prize winning journalist) Bret Stephens quitting the WSJ due to its Trump sycophancy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read Kimberly Strassel. She's every bit the wingnut, conspiracy theorist Trump cultist you are. Take a look at just the titles and synopses of her articles for the WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/news/author/5472

Blah, blah, blah. Strassel is not the sole representative of the WSJ editorial board. By your logic, since Fox News employs Juan Williams, it must be a left-leaning news outlet.

The editorial posted by Chicks earlier from WSJ is entirely consistent with the WSJ editorial board's prior editorials on Trump. The WSJ editorial board is not pro-Trump. Why you seem to want to push a contrarian view on this subject is simply bizarre.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Blah, blah, blah. Strassel is not the sole representative of the WSJ editorial board. By your logic, since Fox News employs Juan Williams, it must be a left-leaning news outlet.

She, however, is the one that writes constantly about the "witch hunt" and whines constantly on Fox about the great conspiracy against your Dear Leader. WSJ only speaks out against Trump when they simply can't avoid it when he atrociously crosses the line, just as a few GOP Congresscritters will before they move on to normal sycophancy.