Can your "beliefs" make you a seditious traitor?

I believe so if you cross the line.

Seditious libel - Wikipedia

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. Libel denotes a printed form of communication such as writing or drawing.

Is it protected by the the First Amendment?

The Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech—including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence—is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not indicate an "imminent" threat.

What are you going to do to the president? 

Since imminent is not defined in the ruling it could be construed to be almost any length of time depending on the circumstance.

Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.

Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject to punishment throughout much of history under laws proscribing “seditious” utterances. In this country, the Sedition Act of 1798 made criminal, inter alia, malicious writings that defamed, brought into contempt or disrepute, or excited the hatred of the people against the government, the President, or the Congress, or that stirred people to sedition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/seditious-spe...

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol"

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

^Yes. You are allowed to harbor whatever beliefs you want. Just like anything else in a courtroom two lawyers could argue back and forth about meanings of words and such but without a definite example or evidence to "sedition" in how it is being described in the law then they are most likely to fail against a lawyer who is on the defense.

I miss thom

^I don't. 

He doesn't have very many original thoughts, so he usually just posts other people's thoughts instead.

>I miss thom
 

He found his peeps at Parler

Poor Thom.