Trump decides not to sanction Russia, against urging of Democrats and Republicans

a reply to: Grambler

Yet you trust those guys for transparency to release a non biased fisa memo?

Are they deep state or transparency saviours?

While I am against acts of war against other nations, the president ignoring a near unamous vote without public discussion as to why and creating a debate is a bit shady. Congress is supposed to have the power to make laws, particularly when a vast majority makes them.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

Why do you misrepresent the issue deliberately by only calling out the Democrats desire to sanction Russia? Unless you didn't read what I posted, I thought I made it pretty clear that support for the sanctions was practically Unanimous.

Well yes, you are correct, the war mongering establishment from both parties wants to fight russia.

I am against that.

I bring up democrats because they were supposedly the party of peace, and they didnt want these wars. Not only that, but they are far more vocaal on how evil the russians are, going on and on every day about it, even going so far as to claim many issues americans are concerned with as the work of russian bots. This feverish demonization and agressiveness toward a country is the definition of xenophobic, but as usual they project there bloodlust on to trump and call him that.

Turns out they are no different than the war mongering neocons they claim to despise.

Are you suggesting that Trump's word is more sacrosanct that every other player in the US right now (FBI, CIA, DOJ, Democrats & Republicans)? If so, it would seem that all Trump need do is tell you whatever he likes and you will discount any amount of evidence to the contrary (which doesn't seem like you are utilizing any critical thinking anymore at that point). If Trump decides to eliminate the aforementioned agencies, set himself up as President for life (along with making Russia our closest ally), would you take any issue with that? Do you believe Putin is an altruistic and good person like Trump?

A you must have watched the Jordan peterson cathy newman interview.

You take what I say, then ask if I am saying something completely different than what I said.

I said I am against warmongering and starting a war with russia.

Yes, if all of those you mentioned want a war with russia, I am against that.

But allow me to use your startegy on you.

Are you saying you want a war between the two biggest nuclear powers on the planet? Are you saying you will cheer for this war based on the CIA FBI etc. word? Are you saying you would support them having a coup and taking out President Trump?

You must have been a fan of the iraq war too, because the deep state all said it was good. Are you saying you will believe anything they say without question?

Wow, this is productive isnt it?

No, I didn't watch the interview you referenced.

You avoided my initial question to ramble loquaciously about war with Russia (which is not what I was asking in the OP), so if you mean to shine a light on your own efforts to derail the discussion therein then that makes more sense.

I get no impression that either the Democrats or Republicans want to 'fight' Russia, merely to enact efforts to dissuade them in a non-military fashion (however if you hold a different opinion as to the nature of sanctions and their role in Warfare then that makes more sense I suppose).

Secondly, I believe in and trust the professionals working in the CIA/FBI/DOJ etc, and although I did not vote for Bush, understood and was behind the actions in Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint (re: chemical weapons) and then shifted my opinion when it because clear that the information used to start that war was faulty.

I don't have a problem answering your questions, its just that I haven't seen a good argument how sanctions = 'Nuclear Holocaust the world is doomed!' that you and others here are jumping to immediately as your main (and in my opinion vacuous argument), while at the same time ignoring the peculiar inconsistency of Trump to employ meaningful retributive action against Russia for something that everyone but Trump has corroborated happened.

originally posted by: luthier
While I am against acts of war against other nations, the president ignoring a near unamous vote without public discussion as to why and creating a debate is a bit shady. Congress is supposed to have the power to make laws, particularly when a vast majority makes them.

Congress is bought and paid for, I thought everyone knew that fact .

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I am unfortunately less surprised than I would like to be that there has seemingly been no mention of this that I can tell yet, so I'd like to pose the issue and see peoples opinions on the matter that seemingly is one of the few areas both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously agree on.

Fox News Article

Congress voted overwhelmingly to sanction Russia for their role in meddling in the US election (something that is agreed upon by both sides as occurring - save but for Trump himself); and by a 517-5 margin (from July legislation passed: the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act). Yet earlier this week (and quietly I may add) Trump decided that sanctions were not necessary, and that merely the 'threat' of sanctions were sufficient.

Additionally, the 'shame' list of crooked Russian oligarchs who were deemed to have procured their wealth through illicit or corrupt means was thrown away at the last minute by someone in the Trump administration and replaced by a copy/paste list from Forbes:

Fox News version of the Shame and Name list report, which of course doesn't make any mention of the expert created list being thrown out at the last minute.

The Guardian's version which references throwing out the expert constructed list in lieu of using the Forbes list.

I am certain there is a sizable portion of the ATS base that believes whatever Trump says 111%, but are there conservative or Republican voters that may or may not have voted/supported Trump who are worried that what is seemingly one of the few areas both the Democrats and Republican's can work together/agree on is being thwarted by Trump's word alone? It feels like I'm witness a murder suspect tell the jury that they shouldn't even hold a trial because he pinkie swears nothing happened.

This seems remarkably suspicious that for someone accused of being a Russian toadie to coincidentally 'adjust' a precedent of US policy to the benefit of Putin/Russia. I may dislike Republican doctrine, but I make no allusions that Russian meddling in the US system is of much graver implication that policy differences between D's and R's.

For a conspiracy forum I find it weirdly disconcerting that what is seemingly a occurrence akin to handing a conspiracy up to the public on a silver platter is being ignored on a site who's focus is just that.

Ummm...I totally agree...we should use even more bellicose rhetoric...

Lets all call them nasty names and make fun of the way they talk...after all...it's not like we have ever meddled in the electoral process of others...erm...except for those times when...D'oh...

A person would have to be real...special...to believe otherwise...

Besides...I really think that what the Hilldog and Odogma did to Libya...and then to Syria...just might be construed as...meddling...don't you think...?

So...while we're panties all in a wad over some face book posts...maybe it might behoove us to take a gander at the...
real elephant in the room...

KWIM...?

YouSir

Those are fair points and I have heard them before, but not specifically relevant to my initial query. The US government does and has done a plethora of shady actions against a variety of nations and that does not nor should it absolve them from continuing to do so. I was against it when Obama and previous presidents/administrations were doing it (along with a variety of other issues that I felt strongly against) as I am against Trump.

a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: Wayfarer

Maybe we should make Putin tell the truth about the collusion between russia and the DNC

Careful, you might just get poisoned just like the others.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

I hate to break this to you but those who bought and paid for the Congress has already turned the Constitution into a toilet paper .

Can't you see what is on the horizon for US and why Trump the Jesuit Knight was brought into Presidency ?

Or maybe, just maybe, Putin has Trump over a barrel.
Or, Trump is happy they interfered in our election, because it was in his favor.
Or, maybe, just maybe, Putin has Trump over a barrel.

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

...rump the Jesuit Knight... ?

You do realize Trump has no idea what a Jesuit is, and would likely consider it an insult from you....

a reply to: 23432

Lol. Hate to break it to you but your comments are irrelevant.

Congress has the right to make laws. The president should explain why he isn't going to use it.

Whatever your personal conspiracy theory is, would be totally irrelevant.

Money in politics is nothing new.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I am unfortunately less surprised than I would like to be that there has seemingly been no mention of this that I can tell yet, so I'd like to pose the issue and see peoples opinions on the matter that seemingly is one of the few areas both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously agree on.

It was mentioned by the commentators on BBC and CNN while Trump was making his SOTU speech last night, and since every news channel was tuned into the speech, I dare say they all mentioned it, while I don't about Fox News since they are blacked out here now.
Any way the gist of it was that Trump says there is no need for any sanctions because those in place are working??

That doesn't mean so much really since there are countries that have contracts with Russia, and those are ongoing, in other words, Trump is still being nicy, nicy to Russia, and deceptive to the home audience.

a reply to: smurfy

Seems to me, it's one of two things. He either loves Putin, or he's scared of him.
Pick your poison.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

...rump the Jesuit Knight... ?

You do realize Trump has no idea what a Jesuit is, and would likely consider it an insult from you....

Trump briefly went to a jesuit university. I may not like the man but he surely knows what a jesuit is

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

...Trump the Jesuit Knight... ?

You do realize Trump has no idea what a Jesuit is, and would likely consider it an insult from you....

From me ?



ok pal , no worries .

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Lol. Hate to break it to you but your comments are irrelevant.

Congress has the right to make laws. The president should explain why he isn't going to use it.

Whatever your personal conspiracy theory is, would be totally irrelevant.

Money in politics is nothing new.

It's not my personal conspiracy .


Congess does have the power but to exercise that power the represantatives needs to work for ordinary Americans .

Let's hope you are not going to claim that they do work for the ordinary Americans .

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: 23432

Sure but that doesn't have to do with what their power is in the Constitution.

Sure he has veto power but he may want to explain why he would ignore a law passed by all but 5 members.

...rump the Jesuit Knight... ?

You do realize Trump has no idea what a Jesuit is, and would likely consider it an insult from you....

Trump briefly went to a jesuit university. I may not like the man but he surely knows what a jesuit is

You are giving him far more faith than I sir. I have seen no evidence to indicate Trump has any understanding whatsoever of morality or religion.

a reply to: Wayfarer

For a conspiracy forum I find it weirdly disconcerting that what is seemingly a occurrence akin to handing a conspiracy up to the public on a silver platter is being ignored on a site who's focus is just that.

The conspirators have suborned the conspiracy theorists. By posing as conspiracy theorists, Russian trolls have left a trail that has led CTs so far into the woods that they refuse to see what anyone with eyes can see.

a reply to: 23432

Again your conspiracies however true, are irrelevant.

The people can vote the reps out if they don't like the sanctions. That is how it works.

If the public wasnt labotimized they would do so.

The fact remains, whatever your conspiracy theory, it's not very common for the president to over rule a massive majority, particularly without a discussion as to why.

It much harder and takes far more work to buy congress than one man.

Hence why it's set up that way.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Wayfarer

For a conspiracy forum I find it weirdly disconcerting that what is seemingly a occurrence akin to handing a conspiracy up to the public on a silver platter is being ignored on a site who's focus is just that.

The conspirators have suborned the conspiracy theorists. By posing as conspiracy theorists, Russian trolls have left a trail that has led CTs so far into the woods that they refuse to see what anyone with eyes can see.

I get the same impression. Its like Trump supporters have been conditioned over the last year to disbelieve anything from anyone that isn't Trump.