Has a US president ever sided with the enemy, before today?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

The Constitution provides no definition of what an "enemy" is. Russia has demonstrated it's willing to commit cyberwarfare on the democratic electoral process worldwide -- in the last five years they have tried to interfere with elections in much of Europe and of course in the United States. This is a level of nefariousness that the Founders were literally incapable of understanding and of course won't be mentioned in any founding document. If you want this entire conversation to revolve around some constitutional precedent for whether or not election hacking is "warfare" then you'll win on pedantry and nothing else.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

Agree 100%.

Any post from Republicans splitting hairs about constitutional merit or legal definitions on this issue is ass-covering, considering they support a President and enable a party apparatus who have shown contempt for the rule of law and for governing institutions in this country. Nobody should have any patience for pedantic arguments like these that try to exonerate despicable and treasonous (lowercase-t treasonous) behavior by technicality.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Russia is not a true enemy, as much as democrats and neocons wish it was. A competitor? Yes. An enemy? No.

I have to laugh

Please, tell me exactly how Russia is a direct enemy of the United States.

     It isn't, and the utterly facile nature of the responses here demonstrates that the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on. Russia is not an enemy of the United States for Constitutional purposes. They are certainly not friends of ours and I am concerned by Trump's dismissal of concerns about them, but that does not make them an enemy.

They're trying to disrupt the most serious political alliance of the last century and they are working actively to undermine the faith of our citizens in our democratic process.

Holy mother of god you people are obtuse. You people are getting played so ing hard by the Russians. They know that half of the country would be too busy playing red vs. blue to take a well-concealed threat from them seriously and they're going to be able to do whatever they want as long as Trump is in charge and people like the blue avatars on this board enable him. They have you people hook, line and sinker.

     I acknowledged above that Russia is a problem and that Trump's statements were concerning. I am saying that they do not qualify per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, wherein the term "enemy" finds its most concrete application and people have been trying to make the case that they are for quite some time now.

You may very well be right. My argument is that it is irrelevant as his conduct is grossly and patently far beneath even the widest latitude possible for any sitting president.

Surely whether or not a present meets the literal statutory and constitutional definition of treason cannot be the bar for Fitness to serve?

Agree 100%.

Any post from Republicans splitting hairs about constitutional merit or legal definitions on this issue is ass-covering, considering they support a President and enable a party apparatus who have shown contempt for the rule of law and for governing institutions in this country. Nobody should have any patience for pedantic arguments like these that try to exonerate despicable and treasonous (lowercase-t treasonous) behavior by technicality.

     I would complain about your assumption of bad faith on my part, but then I remember I did the same to you, so I pretty much deserve it.

But it's not bad faith. I think you (in contrast to most of this board) are (mostly) sincere in your beliefs, but one of two things is happening. Either you are subconsciously having your political identity activated and are using whatever reasoning you can grasp (selective adherence to "rule of law") for to justify it, or you are being naive and prioritizing technical definitions which are not fully appropriate here over common sense. Even if I don't agree with you all the time, I have enough respect for you (singular you, not most of this board) to think the latter instead of the former.

I'm sympathetic to non-hackish Republicans (on this site and in general) because I can't imagine what it's like to see an institution (in this case a political institution) that you identify and agree with so strongly turn out to be so rotten. I'd like to think that if the roles were reversed I'd be able to snap out of my primal instincts and stop supporting the Democratic party but I have no way to know that unless it happens. But for god's sake, we aren't disagreeing over tax policy here. We're talking about a foreign country literally trying to influence our own elections for it's own benefit (and to our detriment), and not only getting away with it, but having our most powerful representative go out of his way to be deferential in the face of all factual counterevidence. That's why I don't care about hair-splitting over whether or not Hamilton would have thought Vladimir Putin was an enemy of the United States.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

ITT: People who think that the USSR wasn't an "enemy" of the United States because the US never had boots on the ground there, apparently.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

How can someone buy into the narrative that Russia is not our enemy based on what we know about their attempts to engage in cyber warfare and influence our public opinion, our alliances and elections? Do you all mean they are not our enemy but also not our friend? What are they then?

Putin is looking to weaken or destroy NATO which he sees as a direct threat to his attempts at Russian expansion. And now we have a President who stands up in front of the world and tells us that despite what the FBI and CIA say, he believes Putin because he "very strongly and forcefully" denied it. That's like presenting a criminal with all whole host of evidence they are guilty of a crime and then freeing him when he says he didn't do it.

I think the usage of the word "enemy" is overly emotive and risks harming prospects for peace. The correct term is probably "frequent adversary" - there is nothing that makes Russia inherently at odds with the US and its neighbours, and the west should try and bring the nation in as a partner (after all, it's not like the west has traditionally been afraid of problematic partners and even allies).

Obama and Clinton tried a hard reset of relations with Russia a decade ago and it backfired. Putin is an ambitious nationalist in that he believes in the restoration of Soviet status and dominance. This is evident in his invasion of Crimea, actions in Georgia and Chechnya, his maintenance of Russian presence n the Middle East, ramping up of anti-Western propaganda/imagery, and most importantly, trying to undermine NATO. Former Warsaw Pact countries are terrified of Russia trying to reexert influence over them (economically or militarily). That is very much in opposition to our allies and, by extension (via Article V) the United States. Until Putin is gone, there is no reason (or evidence) to assume any effort to play nice with Russia will curb their ambitions; this is probably true for whoever his successor is considering his autocratic consolidation of power.