Newfie wrote:One mans traitor is another’s patriot.
Yup. Good thing we American's don't care what the Brits think of George Washington but might be a little bit leery of those who have already tried to interfere with an American national election.
Newfie wrote:All depends on your point of view.
Sure...and facts, testimony under oath, calls to action by a traitor himself, the traitors helpers fessing up, etc etc. So while points of view can be absolutely personal, facts tend to be a little trickier to avoid even by points of view.
Newfie wrote:I would point to any one who argues against accepting the electoral decision as a traitor.
I wouldn't. More like a sore loser, blowhard, etc etc. I'm betting you could find someone who has argued against every American election since the Civil War...doesn't make them a traitor. Just...opinionated.
Newfie wrote:I don’t mean challenging the count within reasonable measure, but one who then refuses to accept the decision.
Nah. I'll bet KKK Grand Wizards refused to accept the outcome of 2008 and 2012 elections. Doesn't make them a traitor, just opinionated. And wrong of course, but to them, their opinion is of highly value than all the facts in evidence.
Newfie wrote:
Thus Trump and those who join him in disavowing the election are a problem.
Certainly a problem, but at the head of it all is a single traitor. Surrounded by sycophants.
Newfie wrote:
What they have in common is arguing for Civil War. That is a very high bar for me to cross. Might get there some day but no where close now.
I think a modern US Civil War is difficult to pull off. A divided civilian population is one thing, and has been with us since the last Civil War, but nowadays you'd need the military itself to split I think, and begin taking their training and equipment with them. Otherwise, whichever side controls a united military has a pretty big trump (no, not the traitor) card.