It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will Republicans Sanction Russia or Prove Their Treason with Inaction

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:44 PM

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DanteGaland

they won't even talk about a strategy to protect ourselves.

they don't care. it's crazy weak.'s called priorities. When your house is infested by termites, cockroaches, and vermin, do you focus your efforts on the irritating wasp nest in one corner of your garden or do you deal with the unwanted visitors who are destroying your home and sanctity? The Russians pulled a 4Chan like stunt that did not produce one single negative for the USA. Of course I don't care about it, it's a throw away that's only making waves in the media because there was a desperate need for Mueller to come up with something, regardless of how weak, to justify the ridiculous expense of this witch hunt. Well, congrats to all, you got your America's Most Wanted... 13 of the most vile, hardened, dangerous, criminally insane asses ever are now about to be brought to justice... Oh, wait... they indicted a baker's dozen of Gopnik nerds, ooohhhh what an accomplishment suited for the modern Elliot Ness.

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:48 PM

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Greven

i have answered
you simply choose not to acknowledge it
thats ok
neocons should be distressed
trumps election to POTUS signals the end of your stranglehold on the gop
its ok for you to be angry
hillary was going to be almost as good as W

change is hard

Your answer was "daca" not "yes" or "no" and whether you think daca is equivalent to yes or to no, I do not know.

Also, not a neocon.

oh really???
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the foreign policy platform of the Democratic Party.
what were you asking about again?


You failed again to provide clarity.

Do you feel as the only member to actually respond to the question does - that the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law under certain circumstances?

Or do you agree with the Constitution that the President's duty is to faithfully execute the laws of our nation?

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:49 PM

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: aethertek

I dunno... are the Democrats looking to slap sanctions on Enrique Peña Nieto for his citizens defrauding the United States, being here illegally, pretending they're legal US citizens, and working online to organize rallies, voter support, and contributions to candidates who are illegal friendly and pushed for amnesty and open borders? No? Why? Seems they're even more nefarious and damaging to this country's electoral process seeing as how the ends they seek actually cost Americans (real Americans) tax dollars, jobs, and loss of rights and freedoms whereas nobody has yet to fully explain what, exactly, the downside to me as an American was of this "Russian election meddling." If Russia's goal was to cost me money, cause me consternation, or otherwise harm the USA, then mission completely failed from where I stand.

Whataboutism? Really?

"What about illegals...what about...what about...?"

How about we DISCUSS the sanctions that 99% of congress voted in support of...and Trump even signed.

He signed it already?

Why is it not in place?!!

Better talk to them hawaiian judges.

They seem to dictate foreign policy now.

Nope, this is all on Mr. Trump.

You've yet to answer "Yes" or "No" by the way.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 12:04 AM

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

OK, first explain who we are sanctioning and why?

Remember these are 13 Russian citizens and not the Russian government as a whole according to the indictments.

So, are you in favor of sanctioning an entire country for what some of its citizens did on social media?

I indulged your question and you wish to further evade the simple question I've asked instead in hopes of getting away from the answer which is already given by the Constitution of the United States of America.

No more deflections.

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
"Yes" or "No."

What was Obama's constitutional duty in regards to DACA? He did not have the constitutional right to write an EO establishing DACA. Will you vilify him for doing so? Basically, if you can not admit that Obama stepped WAAAAAAY out of bounds when he did that, you have no moral high ground.

Yet another challenger who cannot answer a yes/no question, but wishes instead to deflect to Obama under the mistaken assumption that I am a Democrat.

I've already answered that when ketsuko tried to deflect. Read the thread. So many are not doing that.

Then answer the question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No

Yes and by your logic Obama should have been impeached for failure to do so.

Perhaps so, but it's a bit late for that.

Answer the question. Yes or No.

ok we get it mr kristol you hate POTUS
don't you have neocon opinion pieces to finish before press time?

Still unable to answer a simple "yes" or "no" I see.

Why should anyone else answer you? You took my answer and tried to twist it into something it wasn't. You don't want an answer out of curiosity. You want something to use to attempt to beat someone over the head with and proclaim yourself the victor.

This is an odd response.

You wrote:

originally posted by: Khaleesi
There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

I replied:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi
There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

You advocate for a nation where laws are malleable for those with whom you agree.

That is dangerous territory.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. By saying that the president sometimes has an obligation to disobey the law, you advocating that the supreme law of the land is malleable.

Who decides the moral circumstance that allows such malleability?

You? Me? Who?

I'm not trying to bash people. I'm pointing out what I believe to be a flaw in your argument. If laws can be malleable for whatever 'moral obligation' means to whomever feels that way - then they are no longer laws.

The law is written by fallible men. Sometimes we get it wrong. On those occasions, I prefer to look at it in the same way Theodore Roosevelt did. Sometimes we need to realize that the right thing may not be what the law says. Plenty of things are or were legal but were still wrong.

Matthew 12: 9-12

9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him.

11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Sometimes doing what is right is more important than being literal about the law.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:08 AM
a reply to: aethertek

crimes? they posted adds on facebook so what? mark zuckerberg did the exact same damn thing.
the cold war is over . they want us to keep focusing on russia so we keep spending the bulk of our budget on defense. got help us if we find intelligent life in space they will paint them as ultimate threat.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:12 AM
Why exactly would a country be sanctioned because 13 of it's citizens decided to post on facebook and arrange some marches?

Reread your OP... you are suggesting that all Republicans are committing treason if they don't sanction Russia because of social media activity by a handful of their citizens. You clearly have no clue what treason is and are just sensationalising to feed your obvious partisan hatred.

Seriously dude, step away from tele and relax.
edit on 17/2/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:25 AM
I find it amusing that we're all up in arms about Russian influence on our elections... Well, I'm not, but anyway...

When haven't the Russians/Soviets tried to influence elections? Or the U.S.? Or Israel? Or Great Britain? etc...?

Some of you seem to think this is some recent development, or something. It'd be more shocking if the bad, bad Russkies weren't trying...

Outside interests have always tried to influence the elections in this country, because this country, like it or not, pretty much runs a majority of the global show. Some of the methods utilized may have been of dubious legality, but that's neither here nor there. There are rules in place to deal with that.

Frankly, they'd be idiots if they didn't try. Good God, people... The American govt. American corporations. Private Americans. All of those have tried, are trying, will try, to influence foreign political elections.

It's really rather hypocritical of us to decry this whilst we, like a bunch of sheep, allow our own govt to do the exact same thing. Exactly.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 05:36 AM

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Then we could punish Russia even worse by sending them there.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: DBCowboy

Dear god! What is your platform going to be in 2018?

Making America McCarthyist Again!
edit on 17-2-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: seagull

if there are co-conspirators do we ignore them, too?

when their methods are dubious what rules are in place?

do you think we should ramp up our security or do nothing about that either.. cuz we do it they do it, just biz as usual?

i think it's the scope of this meddling, the new tools, the help, that has the intelligence heads concerned.

do you think trump could be blackmailed? why did so many on his staff leave off meetings with russians on their security clearances? why did Flynn tell the Russians not to worry about the sanctions, you okay with that? Why in god's name would trump hire manafort with his history? Kushner tried to set up a back channel with Russia, is that biz as usual, too? if meullers investigation turns up wide spread money laundering, do we do anything?

edit on 17-2-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 11:04 AM
Reactions to Russian indictments in 2016 US election meddling probe

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged a Russian Internet agency and more than a dozen Russians with interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign in an effort to support Donald Trump and denigrate his rival Hillary Clinton. Below are reactions to Mueller’s 37-page indictment:

Sure sure look at all the Republican platitudes posted, so much stinky BS if they don't force Putin's orange anus in the People's House to implement the Russian sanctions already passed.

That & come Monday if this isn't the first article of concern for Congress & Senate we should consider America under siege by a hostile foreign power & any found giving aid to said power should be considered an enemy of America & the very ideals on which it was founded.

You're living in historic times people.


posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 11:18 AM
Monday is a federal holiday, the siege has been postponed until Tuesday.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 11:46 AM
a reply to: underpass61

Damn Birthdays, alright re-park the APCs & reschedule the airstrikes.

We'll have to wait till Tuesday, smoke em if you got them.


posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 12:09 PM
Seriously though, how much can we rely on politicians who take money from the very people who are attacking our society?

GOP campaigns took $7.35 million from oligarch linked to Russia

How Putin's proxies helped funnel millions into GOP campaigns

Buried in the campaign finance reports available to the public are some troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders.

And thanks to changes in campaign finance laws, the political contributions are legal.

We have allowed our campaign finance laws to become a strategic threat to our country.

Citizens United anyone? The Republican law that virtually guarantees bribery & corruption in our political process.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik's campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire.

During that season he contributed $53,400. His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham. In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.

So after they got Trump elected their "funding" went back to pre 2015/16 levels & dispersion.

Why was it so important to these Russians to get Trump elected?

& why did the Republican Party work so hard to get Citizens United passed other than to lay the groundwork for the expected windfall of dirty money they planned to receive.

The contributions are legal because the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, Citizens United, and several subsequent decisions, allowed American corporations and citizens to give unlimited amounts of money to PACs and non-profit 501c4 organizations, regardless of how they make their money, where they make their money, or with whom they make their money.

Follow the dirty players.

The man who led the winning fight for Citizens United was David Bossie, president of the conservative non-profit since 2001.

In 1996, Bossie was hired by Republican Rep. Dan Burton to lead an investigation into President Bill Clinton's campaign fundraising.

The hybrid super-PAC, The Committee to Defend the President, was formed in 2013 under the name Stop Hillary PAC.

It is managed by Dan Backer, the lead attorney who won the McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission case in 2014. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the cap on how much wealthy individuals can donate to federal candidates, parties and PACs in a single, two-year election cycle.

Both articles are filled with relevant information, I suggest you read them.


edit on Sun Feb 18 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: Blaine91555

Hit the reset button . It may take a long time and many elections , but voting in people with a government for the people in mind would be a good start .

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:40 PM
Interference in elections from all countries are a common practice. The difference here is using Trump to make it look like it is something new.
reply to: aethertek

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: aethertek

Republican treason eh?

Let's review -
Elements within our government under Obama conspired with the DNC and Clinton campaign to use a foreign national from the UK, who in turn used foreign nationals from Russia to create a false document smearing Trump so it could be used to interfere with and affect the results of a US Presidential election and then used that same document after Clinton lost to undermine and ultimately attempt to remove a lawfully elected President.


In case you and others are lost it was Clinton and Democrats who committed treason. Not Republicans. As for sanctions the Secretary of Treasury also stated sanctions are going to be applied to Russia in the next few weeks.

Make yourself comfortable with those facts.
edit on 17-2-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:41 PM
They claim that "so what Russia made ads, no big deal, how would that effect the outcome", seriously that's their dumbass ignorant argument.

So I guess the billions of dollars that gets spent by the candidates & their surrogates on ads is just pointless, will not affect the election at all.
An entire section of social science dedicated to mass manipulation, but to the cult45, meh not true, it's myth, "fake news".

So billions spent on adverts, social media campaigns, commercials, robo-calls & then they spend more time & money studying the effect of the "ads" to judge how effective they are at swaying the narrative & the voters.

But somehow magically the Russian ads & media campaigns had absolutely no bearing on the outcome.

A billion dollar industry & none of what they do has any effect, that's what the cult45'rs have either convinced themselves of or are simply comfortable enough believing the lie.

So tell me, can America truly survive at the forefront of nations in science & technology, maintain it's economy & leadership when so many of our population seem to be so mind numbingly stupid.


edit on 17-2-2018 by aethertek because: fgg

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: aethertek

So tell me, can America truly survive at the forefront of nations in science & technology, maintain it's economy & leadership when so many of our population seem to be mind so numbingly stupid.

Dunno. Perhaps we could run an ad and a poll?

I think you're simply lashing out since this isn't as big of a deal as you were hoping.

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:48 PM
a reply to: aethertek

the only stupid ones are the ones that believe social media
and perhaps the ones that think twitter means jack squat when only 20% of americans use twitter

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in