Dear Mr Skiles,

I am scared by reading this !!!!!!!

> 60 % have distrust in them then why did you people allow them !!!! I am sure your country is rich with people who will go lengths to help others then why ???

IMO , politicians should not be businessmen /women they can be teachers /actors but not this , here it is not about bargain ... 

Bob,

I know that a couple of news agencies are going hot-and-heavy exposing Trump's business dealings, specifically how he reneges on payments and bullies contractors. If treason can be defined as the betrayal of trust that someone puts in another person, then I would say Trump is a traitor. From the news reports I have seen and read, he regularly parades contractors through his "office" and pronounces their work substandard. These contractors entered into an agreement to do work for his company, thus they put their trust into his honoring the contract and treating them fairly. By pronouncing their work as substandard when it is not, he violates that trust and betrays them. This is a calculated act that usually results in his gain because a contractor whose business is worth $200,000 realizes that it is virtually futile to attempt to seek redress against a multi-billionaire whose fleet of lawyers could keep the case out of court for years. Thus far he has had something on the order of 3,000 lawsuits against him or his companies, with a majority of those still pending, some for over 15 years.

This is one of the things that worries me about him becoming president, his lack of integrity to those under him or providing services to him. How do we or the world trust him in trade agreements, mutual support pacts, environmental or economic policies, etc. if he has no compunction about throwing them away as he sees fit. Will he betray the American people and our partners in the world as it appears that he has betrayed hundreds, if not thousands, of contractors?

I feel that Trump not winning the Republican Party endorsement, as much as it pains the mainliner republicans, would be as unlikely as the House of Lords stepping in and nullifying the Brexit vote. Revolution would probably follow.

Yes, I suppose that Cicero would consider Donald Trump a traitor because of the latter's extravagant words on politics.

Come now, let's not all get melodramatic about this. If anything, it is the Republican Party that has a problem with trust. The simple fact is, the Party has become too entangled with religions, this started happening in the Reagan years, and most of the members have demonstrated with their votes that they want none of that.

The Republican Party has to understand that they need to listen to their constituents. Donald Trump, like it or not, says what many Republicans seem to want to hear, and the Party so-called "leadership" needs to either put up, or shut up and leave.

On the matter of lawsuits and the rest, well, let these facts come to light. The voters can decide which politician is the worst liar. We can't sit here in judgment, just because Trump doesn't spout our familiar politically correct slogans, right? Let the investigations go ahead full steam, and we'll see what's under those unturned stones.

In my opinion, if it were you or I a judge would have slapped liens on our homes and businesses. If we reneged on business deals and stiffed contractors out of millions of dollars we would be arrested for fraud, because a pattern of refusing to pay agreed services is fraud. In fact, several unions have suits against Trump for those practices. These are not "supposed charges" made up by Democrats in order to bring the presumptive presidential nominee down, they are very well documented cases stretching back for decades where Donald Trump refuses to play fair. To date there have been over 3,500 law suits against Trump or his companies in 30 years, roughly 10 lawsuits per month.

This type of apparent disregard for sound and fair business practices, much less what appears to be the intentional and methodical refusal to honor contracts, is worrisome in a presidential candidate. Presidents are expected to divest themselves of all financial and business ties while in office so that there can be no hint of impropriety. So why is impropriety not important prior to being elected? That brings up another question, will Trump divest himself of all of his business holding if elected president?

It is amazing how the American public is ignoring all of Trump's reported business shenanigans, much less his seemingly prodding followers to do violence. However, this is the same public that believed Obama would create elderly death squads who would eliminate those too old or too unfit to serve society.

Respectfully,

JAG

Donald Trump speaks irrelevant about individuals and countries.

I like a lot what George Stoica has previously written and I laught a lot. But I am impressed by this citation of Cicero as well, as it really shows how complicated and tedious betrayal can be. A politician can do it not necessarily to be the agent of a foreign power, but just to get rich himself, instead of serving the nation which elected him. On the other hand it is quite difficult to understand what is really in Trump's mind. But if he starts to disengage America from NATO or to divide again the world by treating with Putin, then he is surely a traitor. Are you really so curious that you would make an experiment just to see what will he do? Politics must be predictable, and this man is unpredictable. It is five to twelve to stop this game.

C.,

I beg to disagree, but when someone does something that 6 to 7 previous officials in the same exact position did (a documented fact and many of those officials have admitted to it), but she is the only one being investigated and accused of violating national security, then that is nothing but a biased witch hunt. If these are such legitimate concerns, then why not investigate and prosecute the previous officials? Surely if it was you or I and it was found that we violated national security 10 years ago we would have the FBI and a SWAT team busting in our door. This country is about civil rights and treating everyone the same in the eyes of the law. Not treating all past and present Secretaries of State's actions equally reflects on the motives and intentions of those that try to bring charges and implement investigations.

Same with the Libyan investigation. Not only did a commission made up of both democrats and republicans find conclusively that she did nothing wrong and in fact wanted to increase security at the compound and was turned down by the ambassador, but a subsequent all-republican commission also found no fault. And still, members of the Republican Party want her to face charges for her handling of the attack on the American Embassy in Libya. Does the fact that both a bipartisan and a partisan commission clearing her of wrong-doing suggest anything about those who still see her as culpable in allowing the attack?

I would have to say that we both think that neither candidate is preferable.

Traitor is often difficult to define and Cicero's view of treason was very different to that of others.  Kim Philby once denied that his spying for the Soviets was treason.  Put simply he had no allegiance to his native state and was fully committed to the Soviet system.  

Were the July plotters against Hitler traitors or patriotic heros?  Is treason defined by good guys v. bad guys?

It could be argued that Trump has only one allegiance and that is to Trump.  He cannot betray himself so he cannot be a traitor.  It is plainly obvious that he has no allegiance to the United States and that his "Make America Great Again' is just cheap rhetoric.

If he wins the election he will certainly betray many Americans, starting with those who were duped into supporting him.  For all Americans with an eye to treacherous politicians they need look no further than the UK.  We just had a Treasonfest here with politicians really showing what they are made of.  

As for loyalty, the opposite of betrayal, we have many years of Trump history to look at to determine where he sits with that definition.

I guess the polls would eventually tell the whole world whether America thinks Trump is a traitor or otherwise. A few weeks to go.

This makes me think of a cannon. When you stand behind it you see it as a defensive weapon. When you stand in front of it you see it as an offensive weapon. Perhaps sitting astride it is the way to go. That will put you in the hot seat. Hopefully if Trump makes it he will end up in the hot seat. :-)

Donald Trump says three law officers dead in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is a result of the lack of leadership in this country.

This is a very tasteless and cheap politicized comment at a time when they are still hunting two other possible suspects. Donald should learn when it is appropriate to open his mouth and when to keep silent.

FYI - this is 54k (33.5 mi) from me.

The murder of police officers by loony toons with battlefield weapons is not simply a result of the equally heinous murder of black men by white officers.  It is caused by the kind of defect in the society that makes it possible for a man like Donald Trump to be in the running for President.

The rhetoric and activities of Trump are exactly the kind of radicalisation that causes crazed psycho's to kill in the name of 'Islam'.  First talk yourself into victimhood, then demand revenge.  Radicalisation is a pernicious poison manufactured out of hatred and nihilism like most revenge it offers nothing but more misery and hatred.  Driving a truck at a crown of people enjoying Bastille day or shooting club goers cannot be excused under any circumstances ever.

Listen to the message of Trump and the rabid crazed Islamists.  They say the same things, fear, resentment, hatred, threats.  Our media reports this endlessly to a people armed with the wherewithal to cause mass murder in minutes.   The mass shooters and the cop shooters are every bit the radicalised terrorist as the suicide bomber.

One other point on radicalisation, we should not confuse the ability to vote with living in a democracy.  Elections are held, votes are cast in Iran.  Here in the UK we have just made a big mistake based on perceived 'democratic deficit'.  The deficit has not gone away.

AT times I assume -  leaders really born !!!!!!!! I mean responsibility for so many many lives , and they are the same . The primary objective and mission of the party has he read it (benefit of doubt for not understanding ...) .

I wonder - Have times changed  ??????

Who are traitors? Honest people, expressing and fighting for the truth against authoritarianism? Russian martyrolog is endless. I can't judge Trump, but I was surprised and angry by this fact. "Couple lose their job for speaking out against Donald Trump".  I think, every leader must be Father for freedoms in the democratic society.To become jobless because of the childish poem?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rv-spokespeople-donald-trump_us_5787ac4de4b0867123dff697 

Dear Irina,

Thank you for the pointer to this important article which indicates the negative effect that just the thought [possibility] of a Trump presidency is ALREADY having on the freedom-of-expression in the US. It also contained a number of links to other articles that tend to indicate that smart/intelligent/thinking people (the antitheses to Trump voters/supporters) are roundly condemning the Trump candidacy ... especially important being a open letter from about 150 of Silicon Valley's (the US center of technological innovation) top leaders of technology innovation declaring that a Trump presidency would have a major suppressive effect on innovation (and explicating the numerous reasons WHY they believe that). I copy the link below ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/major-tech-leaders-send-open-letter-on-trump_us_5787a2afe4b03fc3ee4f76fc?wlsdcxr

Spokespersons are in a class, along with some other professions, that what they do outside of their spokesperson duties can reflect poorly or be negatively associated with a product/service. While there is free speech, anyone recognizable as representing a brand or service must tread carefully. For instance, is it appropriate for a Catholic priest to do commercials promoting firearms? If a well-known person is the face of dairy product commercials, is it okay for them to write a blog on how teens can sneak into bars?

I have posted a following question:

How do you explain the Trump’s victory as a question of economics?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_explain_the_Trumps_victory_as_a_question_of_economics#582dce974048548ea67ac3f6

Although I think this is a new sincere good question concerning economics, the RG people in charge of topics link cut all links to topics to

• Economics
• International political economy
• International trade
• International economics 

Is it a fair measure?

I ask this question: does Trump win by elections or be put at the head of USA by the feet of soldiers? or  came to USA on Russian military tank?

If you accept that the previous presidents represented the face of USA, Trump also does. 

Also, I ask: if Clinton was a man facing Trump, do you think Americans will choose Trump? I think the winner in these elections really represented the face of USA ( USA has many faces, it is time to see this face too and accept it)

@ Hanifa

Trump won the votes of less-than-half of the citizens who voted. Less than 6-out-of-10 of the citizens who were qualified to vote, actually cast a vote [probably many of those refused to vote because they were disgusted by having only a choice between two unlikeable (very-much-hated) candidates]. While it is acknowledged that Trump (legally) won the election, he received the votes of only about 30% of qualified voters, and Clinton received probably about two-million more votes than he did. So, it cannot be said that the electorate gave either of them a "mandate" (a clear majority support), BUT it is very clear that a majority of Americans (both those who voted and those who did not) were not enamored of either (many who are polled saying they were thoroughly disgusted by both of them).

Thus, it cannot be said that Trump represents the "face of America" by any stretch of the imagination. Likewise, the same is certainly true of Clinton (probably as much as half the voters who voted for Trump did so mainly because they were voting against Clinton, and not "for" Trump because they "liked" him or felt he was qualified). So, we have ended-up with a president who a majority of Americans view as unqualified and non-representative of them (and whose personality and obvious lack of a moral core, disgusts many of us).

And to answer your question about whether Clinton may have been elected if she had been a man instead of a woman ... IMO, yes ... there were probably enough voters who discriminated against her (or for the male) simply because she was a woman. Sexism, like racism [which the racists now call "nationalism" in an attempt to obscure its true nature], is still alarmingly prevalent among some Americans [especially the religious-right who still cling to the antediluvian belief that women were made only for the purpose of serving men, and women in any other role is sinful, morally corrupt, and against God].

A bad compromise is better than a good lawsuit.

Yes dear Bob, I know that very well. But I want to say this is USA democracy system, there is no exterior factor  enter in the game to make Trump a traitor.  

Any way, as USA is a big power, no state can use planes and tanks and come to destroy your country and kill your children because Trump or because those who choose Trump

@ Dear Hanifa,

I do not see in Cicero's discussion of what constitutes treason the requirement for an external enemy; rather, he stresses that the "enemy within" commits a far worse form of treason and is a more formidable foe than any enemy "outside the gates."

It is that form of treason (the "enemy within") that I see Trump as already having committed. The only thing IMO that may excuse Trump from such a charge of treason is that he is an "unwitting traitor" [that is, he is so ignorant of the fundamental and constitutional precepts of the American nation, so mentally incompetent, that he lacks the capacity for "willful" treason].

In any case, the (only ?) professor who predicted Trump's electoral victory (from the very beginning) has now made a new prediction ... that Trump will be impeached [likely for some treasonous act ... not necessarily willful treason, but more likely mistakes made from ignorance and incompetence].

IMO he will not be impeached ... it's more likely he will be quietly forced-to-resign [after a few months of international embarrassments and seeing Trump is too unpredictable and not loyally-and-consistently aligned with their principles) by pressure [threats of impeachment ?] from his own Republican Party because they would prefer his vice-president (Pence) ascend to the presidency ... who is a tried-and-true conservative ... one proven loyal to their political principles and agenda ... and, thus, a known (and controllable) quantity.  

Yes, by that sense I definitely agree with you: anybody takes a responsibility and knows he is not competent, it is a betrayal. Also anybody governs even a few people and he knows that they refuse him it is unacceptable, these two principals are the cornerstone in the presidency..

Dear Bob,

I am afraid many do not know either Cicero or his ideas. I think Trump belongs to this group. I am not sure that Trump can even understand what Cicero thought to be a treason. I am afraid we live in such a deformed world that normal and really principled ideas cannot be understood not only for the people in the street but also for many pseudo-academics.   

Dear Bob

I hope I can help you but it is not my field 

Cicero got the whole thing ass backwards.  A nation can survive treason and all nations have done so.  Fools have done more damage to nations by stupidity than any clever traitor could have done by design.

Donald Trump may not be the sort of guy you would invite to a debate on philosophy but he is no fool.  He will not be impeached and he will not step down in favor of Pence.  He will commit no treasons wilful or otherwise.   For the next 4 years he will be a vicarious embarrasment to many, if not most Americans, but then he will be gone.  

If we want to draw analogies with empires 'lost' we should avoid false analogies.  The empire that gave birth to Cicero survived treasons, corruption, despots, loony tunes and every manner of villain.  It outlived them all and moved ever onwards from strength to strength .  For all the apocalyptic visions invoked by the Donald's election victory, the United States will still be around long after he has drifted into his dotage.        

Here's an idea.  It is quite right that America should by now have a woman president.  Hillary did not make it in 2016, How about Ivanka for 2020?

Dear Saeed,

Thank you for taking the time to respond; your honesty and forbearance, in being reluctant to comment on things outside your expertise, are greatly respected! I honor (and envy) your wisdom :)

you welcome Bob , always RG friends answering far away from right answer so we all like to get more RG but in right way. Im pleasure for your reply BOb

@Barry Turner  in the light of recent developments do you still hold your views about Donald Trump or have they changed

Adejoke

I still consider President elect Trump to be a boorish, opportunistic loud mouth with a particularly severe form of narcisistic personality. My main view however remains that he will be far more of a dissapointment to his supporters than a threat to those who opposed him.   

Mr Trump is now in an unfamiliar place,  he is used to being in absolute control and as Presdident Obama eloquently explained the other day the presidency is more likely to control him than the other way around. 

What is inescapable here is that he won the election.  Hilary Clinton entered the election quite satisfied with the electoral college system and she lost.  It is pointless talking about popular votes etc.  She lost by the rules she accepted and he won by them.

The American voter and the world have got to get used to him.  Trump is not the first boorish narcisist to be president and he won't be the last.  

Considering that it is said that Trump's recent Presidential Orders concerning health insurance will cause those who voted him into to office to pay much more for health insurance premiums. Those same people who studies show elected Trump because they were tired of the lower class people getting more than their fair share and the burden supposedly being shouldered by them, the middle class. Then, yes, I do suppose that Cicero would consider him a traitor to his base.