Sen. Tom Cotton, Alleged Traitor, Potential GOP Running Mate

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 12:34 AM GMT
    05mag-05talk-t_CA0-blog427.jpg

    NYT: Your parents were Democrats, and you were 15 when your state’s native son, Bill Clinton, was elected president. When did you become a Republican?

    That was the beginning of my attentiveness to politics. When he was running, my thinking was, I can’t believe my governor is running for president. By the end of Clinton’s first year in office, I was like, Wow, I must not be a Democrat.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/magazine/tom-cotton-is-not-mailing-it-in.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 1:57 AM GMT
    If all you're going to do is quote the article, your thread title should reflect the title or theme of the article.

    The title is: Tom Cotton Is Not Mailing It In

    If you want the title to represent some other gist of the article, if you read it and comprehended it, which IMO is doubtful, you will notice the term "traitor" was not used at all.

    Other RJ members have been criticized for this same little tactic. Maybe they will also take you to task.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:05 AM GMT
    The title is my opinion on Sen. Tom Cotton, an alleged traitor. After some of your threads' titles do not match the titles of articles you cite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:26 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidThe title is my opinion on Sen. Tom Cotton, an alleged traitor. After some of your threads' titles do not match the titles of articles you cite.

    If my thread solely links to an article, the thread title either matches the article title or it is very close.

    In your case, your opinion is not the subject of the article and is misleading.

    Because you are so in love with the New York Times, perhaps having been told that quoting it gives the appearance of intelligence, you discredit the author and editor by not staying true to their title.

    BTW - I think your opinion is garbage. Obama, who tramples the Constitution, and people like you who support him are the real traitors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:33 AM GMT
    Your vitriolic is laughable. My title is "Sen. Tom Cotton, Alleged Traitor, Potential GOP Running Mate." It is my opinion but it is factual.

    Tom Cotton is his name, which is a fact as stated in the article.
    He is a senator, which is a fact as stated in the article.
    He is a potential GOP running mate, which is a fact mentioned by the article.
    That he sent a message to Iran, a fact mentioned by the article.

    That he is an alleged traitor has been referenced by various analyses, a fact.

    You do not like my opinions. Okay, you are entitled to that. But if you don't like facts, that is sad.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:40 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidYour vitriolic is laughable. My title is "Sen. Tom Cotton, Alleged Traitor, Potential GOP Running Mate." It is my opinion but it is factual.

    Tom Cotton is his name, which is a fact as stated in the article.
    He is a senator, which is a fact as stated in the article.
    He is a potential GOP running mate, which is a fact mentioned by the article.
    That he sent a message to Iran, a fact mentioned by the article.

    That he is an alleged traitor has been referenced by various analyses, a fact.

    You do not like my opinions. Okay, you are entitled to that. But if you don't like facts, that is sad.

    He is an alleged traitor because someone alleges that, not stated in the article, however. Ok so it is a fact that he is an "alleged traitor". I allege that you are a naive kook-aid drinker who thinks quoting the NY Times makes you appear smart. So it is a fact that you're an "alleged kook-aid drinker". Your thought process is juvinile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:41 AM GMT
    By the way, here is a fact that you should write down: titles of articles are written by the editors of a publication and not the writers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:44 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidBy the way, here is a fact that you should write down: titles of articles are written by the editors of a publication and not the writers.

    I referred to the title as owned by the author and editor. In some publications, the author has some involvement. Nice try.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:46 AM GMT
    Giggles! Only low quality publications would allow writers to write their own titles. But hey you would know all about that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:59 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidGiggles! Only low quality publications would allow writers to write their own titles. But hey you would know all about that.

    Is that another brilliant opinion? I have seen involvement by writers even though the editor has the final say. I've had experience with a major California newspaper. What exactly is your experience, and is it with the NY Times or do you just like to pretend? Is a thread title misrepresenting the article quoted typical of a "low quality" publication. Do you aspire to follow in Jayson Blair's footsteps, speaking of the NY Times?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 5:15 AM GMT
    So let us analyze what you don't like about the title "Sen. Tom Cotton, Alleged Traitor, Potential GOP Running Mate"

    You don't like that his name is Tom Cotton?
    You don't like that he is a senator?
    You don't like that he is a potential GOP running mate?
    You don't like that he sends a message to Iran the inference of which is that he is an alleged traitor?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 5:32 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidSo let us analyze what you don't like about the title "Sen. Tom Cotton, Alleged Traitor, Potential GOP Running Mate"

    You don't like that his name is Tom Cotton?
    You don't like that he is a senator?
    You don't like that he is a potential GOP running mate?
    You don't like that he sends a message to Iran the inference of which is that he is an alleged traitor?

    You did not want to present your journalistic credentials. Understand. You probably don't have any to speak of.

    Not playing any more games with you. Yes, someone can make the allegation that he is a traitor, so you can say he is an alleged traitor. I and many others allege Obama is a traitor, so by the same token, it is a fact that Obama is an alleged traitor. But regardless, the allegation regarding Cotton was not made in the article. Because your thread solely quoted the article with no other input from you or others in the OP, the title suggested that was a allegation made by the writer, which it wasn't. If you liken a thread title to a headline, your tactic represented gutter journalism. That is a fact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 5:40 AM GMT
    My title of a thread is a premise to start a discussion of Sen. Tom Cotton. I cited to an article to provide the background for the discussion. Even provided a link to the article. I made no representation that an RJ thread title will be a title of a newspaper article. You require for me to do that and am under no compunction to you to do so.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    The difference being, had this been a title from certain members of the conservarump about a Dem, it would have gone something like:

    Democrat Vice Presidential Hopeful and Iran Letter Traitor Slurs Ex-president
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 05, 2015 3:04 PM GMT
    Interesting thread. I like the prevent-defense.

    Should Cotton be considered a traitor? I don't know. Has he made himself irrelevant? Quite possibly. If the deal between P5+1 and Iran is widely popular, Cotton and his co-signees will be eating their words.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 3:13 PM GMT

    Hmmm...this is something I don't mention much, but I can read eyes, faces and body language, apparently rather well.

    This Cotton fellow is not what you think, and it's rather hilarious. Some of you would pull away from him at lightning speed....icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    ...or maybe not. Tsk tsk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    About 4500 people wrote to the NYT regarding with Senator Tom Cotton did with the vast majority calling him a traitor:

    One from Slide, in New York: “Truly stunning,” the commenter marveled, speaking of the senators. “They are actually communicating with a foreign nation in an attempt to sabotage ongoing negotiations. Someone tell me why this is not a blatant violation of the Logan Act?”

    Steve in Santa Clara succinctly echoed him: “Honestly, only two words spring to mind: Logan Act!”

    “If Democratic senators did this to a Republican president,” wrote Victor Gold, of Los Angeles, “Republican members of Congress and Fox News would call it treason. And they would be right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 3:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    He is an alleged traitor because someone alleges that, not stated in the article, however. Ok so it is a fact that he is an "alleged traitor". I allege that you are a naive [u]kook-aid [?] drinker who thinks quoting the NY Times makes you appear smart[/u]. So it is a fact that you're an "alleged kook-aid drinker". Your thought process is juvinile. [sic]

    woodsmen could also quote other major newspapers, like the New York Daily News, which is not known for being left wing:

    traitors_zpsv3id3rd8.jpg

    Whereas you think making ad hominem attacks against people makes YOU look smarter. Well, it certainly hasn't helped your spelling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    1. I can find numerous news sources and commenters who support Cotton's action. Some suggest it should have been addressed to the public and seen by Iran, which I agree with, but there is still widespread support for the letter.

    2. There is bipartisan support in Congress for a bill to require Congress to weigh-in on this, which Obama opposes. That bill really isn't necessary; Congress must ratify treaties even if Obama doesn't care about the law.

    3. Many, including other countries, France and other mid-east countries, believe the concessions made have led to a terrible framework. If it were to stand, many believe it will lead to a mid-east arms race.

    4. Many believe both Obama and Kerry have personal motives for having desperately wanted a deal, leading to a weak negotiating position.

    5. Aside from the commenters to the NY Times article, poll numbers show widespread dissatisfaction with the Obama foreign policy, etc.

    6. Now back to Cotton: No wonder the far-left is up in arms about him. He is young, personable, served honorably in the military. Not someone who fits a far-left stereotype.

    7. Thanks Arty for the spell-check. Sometimes I get careless. Good to know you can do things in your sober moments when not working out. hehe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:13 PM GMT
    A group started the tag #47Traitors to describe the Republicans who signed the letter and who the Democrats say are undermining the president’s authority

    The #47traitors tag was used more than 208,000 times on March 11, 2015. Although partisans on both sides of the political divide used the tag, Brandwatch reported that there were more than three negative messages about the letter’s signatories for every positive one.

    One twitter twitted: I'm glad the raid to kill Osama Bin Laden was secret, so no Republican Senators could send him a letter about it first. #47Traitors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:18 PM GMT
    Taken together, the various sources put forward to support the claim that Cotton's an "alleged traitor," don't have much credibility. Anyone can form an opinion; to make an allegation requires facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:33 PM GMT
    It is an undeniable fact that Senator Tom Cotton sent an open letter to Iran to which the Iranian responded. As to whether that constitutes treason, here is an analysis by Kathleen DuVal, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:

    Senator Tom Cotton's letter addressed to Iranian leaders, warning them about making a nuclear deal with President Obama, came as a surprise to many Americans. But it would not have surprised our earliest forefathers. After all, it was not uncommon, in the years immediately following the American Revolution, for individual Americans to negotiate directly with representatives of foreign governments.

    Back then, individual Americans independently committed forces to foreign wars. In 1793, the French emissary, Edmond-Charles Genet, recruited citizens in South Carolina to raise forces to fight with the French against Britain and Spain. In 1797, Senator William Blount of Tennessee plotted to invade Spanish Florida with help from the British.

    Increasingly, Americans began to see alternative negotiating as treason. President George Washington and his secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, put a stop to the French emissary Genet’s recruiting, and Senator Blount left the Senate under threat of impeachment. When, in 1805, Aaron Burr, right after serving as Jefferson’s vice president, conspired to seize Spanish lands and possibly establish an independent republic, Jefferson declared Burr a traitor and ordered his arrest. Burr was acquitted, but Americans generally agreed with Jefferson that, if Burr had done what he was accused of, he was a traitor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/opinion/a-history-lesson-for-the-republicans-who-wrote-to-iran.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:42 PM GMT
    Sending a letter is not negotiating, so the opinion piece has no substance.

    Furthermore, the far-left forgets the precedents involving much more involvement with a foreign power than just sending a letter. Does the term "traitor" also apply to your heros, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry?

    From the Washington Post, not a right leaning paper, with bold added by me.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/hillary-clintons-uncredible-statement-on-syria/2011/04/01/AFWPEYaC_blog.html
    In a meantime, a number of congressional delegations have made trips to Damascus to meet with Assad. Most famously, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) met with Assad in 2007 over the objections of President Bush, though Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California also traveled there, believing it was important to maintain a dialogue. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has made repeated visits to Damascus to meet at length with Assad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:51 PM GMT
    The illogic of stating that sending a letter to Iran to negate a sitting U.S. President the power to negotiate and indicating that the negotiating power lies elsewhere is clear.

    Unlike the Iran letter, the referenced link to the Washington Post did not say that Nancy Pelosi told Assad that President Bush has no power to negotiate. The same referenced link indicates that "Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California also traveled there [to meet Assad]." In fact, Republican Rep. Boehner recently traveled to Israel.

    In fact, various states send officials to all countries to negotiate trade.

    The difference is none of them sent the Iran letter to refute the power of the President of the United States.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2015 4:59 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidThe illogic of stating that sending a letter to Iran to negate a sitting U.S. President the power to negotiate and indicating that the negotiating power lies elsewhere is clear.

    Unlike the Iran letter, the referenced link to the Washington Post did not say that Nancy Pelosi told Assad that President Bush has no power to negotiate. The same referenced link indicates that "Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California also traveled there [to meet Assad]." In fact, Republican Rep. Boehner recently traveled to Israel.

    In fact, various states send officials to all countries to negotiate trade.

    The difference is none of them sent the Iran letter to refute the power of the President of the United States.

    Pelosi went to an adversarial nation over the objections of President Bush, so her mere going there would be viewed objectively as attempting to undermine his power. What she told Assad in private is anyone's guess.