|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Estonia4504 Posts
On July 28 2017 07:17 Introvert wrote:
What are the Democrats going to run on if this great, wonderful program called Obamacare doesn't get touched? Collusion? lol
I actually think this attitude opens up a lot of really creative thinking. Since collusion and upholding democratic norms are out of vogue, I wonder how one could use this as an advantage next election, since clearly this one was only a test run.
Let's say we could get Iran on board. Wouldn't it be great to get along with Iran? Everything other than an open mind to this is backwards. lol
|
On July 28 2017 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 06:29 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm convinced Trump hired this clown to create a firestorm of distractions. Nobody is this out of control without permission, tacit or not, from their higher ups. Very likely true. This is the same thing as announcing trans stuff. They knew it would send everyone into a "REEE" fit. Go to news sites right now and you'll see a ton of trans stuff. Russia is officially not a big deal right now.
This. It's distracting from what Bill Browder has said in the last 48 hours.
|
Oh will Trump have to sign or veto the Russia sanctions bill tomorrow? Can't wait for that.
|
On July 28 2017 08:00 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 07:17 Introvert wrote:
What are the Democrats going to run on if this great, wonderful program called Obamacare doesn't get touched? Collusion? lol
I actually think this attitude opens up a lot of really creative thinking. Since collusion and upholding democratic norms are out of vogue, I wonder how one could use this as an advantage next election, since clearly this one was only a test run. Let's say we could get Iran on board. Wouldn't it be great to get along with Iran? Everything other than an open mind to this is backwards. lol
It's kinda sad that a political party has to come up with shit to run, instead of just pointing out that Obamacare is so important that the republicans couldn't get rid of it even when they controlled senate, congress and WH.
Kinda goes without saying. Just start any ad with "sponsored by the party who gave you Obamacare - we get shit done".
|
United States43518 Posts
The West Wing episode where Jed rages against DOMA only to be lectured that it doesn't matter, it's happening whether he wants it to or not and if he refuses to sign then his agenda is going to get bogged down for the rest of the term, was fantastic. Righteous fury mixed with impotence, a choice between doing what is right and fulfilling his duty to the people who elected him and the country.
|
I feel like ticklish's depiction of the white house as lord of the flies is becoming rapidly plausible. I didn't save it though.
|
That Ryan Lizza interview of Scaramucci is INSANE. Who talks like that to a reporter????????
|
I feel like this is a kinda awkwardly appropriate description.
Scaramuccia (literally "little skirmisher"), also known as Scaramouche or Scaramouch, is a stock clown character of the Italian commedia dell'arte (comic theatrical arts). The role combined characteristics of the zanni (servant) and the Capitano (masked henchman). Usually attired in black Spanish dress and burlesquing a don, he was often beaten by Harlequin for his boasting and cowardice.
|
|
|
On July 28 2017 08:06 Nevuk wrote:
I feel like ticklish's depiction of the white house as lord of the flies is becoming rapidly plausible. I didn't save it though.
I remember it. I wish I had saved it too. Something about Bannon feeding on staffers as he makes his way to the WW.
|
The Senate on Thursday delivered Donald Trump the first big bipartisan rebuke of his presidency, giving final approval to a package of sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea that constrains his bid to defrost relations with Moscow.
The Senate voted 98-2 to approve the sanctions bill that cleared the House earlier this week. Trump must now decide whether to sign a measure that allows Congress to block any attempt to ease or end penalties against Vladimir Putin's government and imposes new sanctions in response to a Russian electoral disruption campaign that the president continues to dispute.
The House passed the sanctions package on Tuesday in an overwhelming 419-3 vote, and an intra-GOP squabble that threatened to delay its passage was quickly resolved Wednesday night.
The White House has avoided taking a clear position on the sanctions legislation all week, with communications director Anthony Scaramucci telling CNN on Thursday that Trump "may sign the sanctions exactly the way they are, or he may veto the sanctions and negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians."
If Trump does decide to veto the bill, Congress has shown it could easily override him.
In stark contrast to the partisan warfare that has marked the health care debate, senior Republicans and Democrats paid tribute to their counterparts across the aisle Thursday for cooperation on the sanctions bill.
"This bill has taken passion, tenacity and all of us working together to bring out the best in this body," Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on the floor before the bill's final passage.
The only no votes on the bill were Kentucky Republican Rand Paul and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.
Corker also hailed the congressional oversight language that the White House had resisted as a bid by lawmakers to grow "more and more relevant, to garner back the powers we have given to the executive branch."
Corker, a longtime ally of the Trump administration, said he has talked to both the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about the sanctions bill in recent days and "gotten no indication from them that they plan to veto it."
"It's just not a good way to start a presidency to veto something and then be soundly overridden," Corker told reporters. "It wouldn't be something I would do, but they may choose to do it."
Source
|
Already keeping an eye on twitter, his reaction should be good.
|
On July 28 2017 08:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Senate on Thursday delivered Donald Trump the first big bipartisan rebuke of his presidency, giving final approval to a package of sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea that constrains his bid to defrost relations with Moscow.
The Senate voted 98-2 to approve the sanctions bill that cleared the House earlier this week. Trump must now decide whether to sign a measure that allows Congress to block any attempt to ease or end penalties against Vladimir Putin's government and imposes new sanctions in response to a Russian electoral disruption campaign that the president continues to dispute.
The House passed the sanctions package on Tuesday in an overwhelming 419-3 vote, and an intra-GOP squabble that threatened to delay its passage was quickly resolved Wednesday night.
The White House has avoided taking a clear position on the sanctions legislation all week, with communications director Anthony Scaramucci telling CNN on Thursday that Trump "may sign the sanctions exactly the way they are, or he may veto the sanctions and negotiate an even tougher deal against the Russians."
If Trump does decide to veto the bill, Congress has shown it could easily override him.
In stark contrast to the partisan warfare that has marked the health care debate, senior Republicans and Democrats paid tribute to their counterparts across the aisle Thursday for cooperation on the sanctions bill.
"This bill has taken passion, tenacity and all of us working together to bring out the best in this body," Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on the floor before the bill's final passage.
The only no votes on the bill were Kentucky Republican Rand Paul and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.
Corker also hailed the congressional oversight language that the White House had resisted as a bid by lawmakers to grow "more and more relevant, to garner back the powers we have given to the executive branch."
Corker, a longtime ally of the Trump administration, said he has talked to both the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about the sanctions bill in recent days and "gotten no indication from them that they plan to veto it."
"It's just not a good way to start a presidency to veto something and then be soundly overridden," Corker told reporters. "It wouldn't be something I would do, but they may choose to do it." Source
If he signs it I bet no one told him whats in it and just put it on his desk in a big stack of things that need signing :p.
|
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement.
|
United States43518 Posts
On July 28 2017 08:26 Tachion wrote:
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement.
They put Iran in there. No Republican would ever refuse to sign anything perceived to be tough on Iran. Hell, Bush senior once said something along the lines of "Am I sorry we shot down an Iranian civilian airliner full of innocent people? No. I'd never apologize for anything America did".
|
On July 28 2017 08:26 Tachion wrote:
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement.
You're showing some pretty tortured logic here. I haven't heard a soul protest claims that Russia meddled in the election. We had the article detailing how past dovish policies emboldened Putin. Have you considered it's to punish Russia for things it did and set about making Putin think twice about this level of involvement next time around?
|
On July 28 2017 08:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:On July 28 2017 06:29 On_Slaught wrote:
I'm convinced Trump hired this clown to create a firestorm of distractions. Nobody is this out of control without permission, tacit or not, from their higher ups. Very likely true. This is the same thing as announcing trans stuff. They knew it would send everyone into a "REEE" fit. Go to news sites right now and you'll see a ton of trans stuff. Russia is officially not a big deal right now. This. It's distracting from what Bill Browder has said in the last 48 hours.
100%. Any time a Trumpkin says 'adoptions', they mean sanctions that Putin has fought with every available tool in his tool box. Including good old torture and murder.
One of my main partners in this effort was Boris Nemtsov. Boris testified in front of the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, and others to make the point that the Magnitsky Act was a “pro-Russian” piece of legislation because it narrowly targeted corrupt officials and not the Russian people. In 2015, Boris Nemtsov was murdered on the bridge in front of the Kremlin.
Boris Nemtsov’s protégé, Vladimir Kara-Murza, also traveled to law-making bodies around the world to make a similar case. After Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Russian Investigative Committee, was added to the Magnitsky List in December of 2016, Vladimir was poisoned. He suffered multiple organ failure, went into a coma and barely survived.
The lawyer who represented Sergei Magnitsky’s mother, Nikolai Gorokhov, has spent the last six years fighting for justice. This spring, the night before he was due in court to testify about the state cover up of Sergei Magnitsky’s murder, he was thrown off the fourth floor of his apartment building. Thankfully he survived and has carried on in the fight for justice.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/
|
On July 28 2017 08:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 08:26 Tachion wrote:
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement. You're showing some pretty tortured logic here. I haven't heard a soul protest claims that Russia meddled in the election. We had the article detailing how past dovish policies emboldened Putin. Have you considered it's to punish Russia for things it did and set about making Putin think twice about this level of involvement next time around?
Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics.
|
On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 08:32 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:26 Tachion wrote:
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement. You're showing some pretty tortured logic here. I haven't heard a soul protest claims that Russia meddled in the election. We had the article detailing how past dovish policies emboldened Putin. Have you considered it's to punish Russia for things it did and set about making Putin think twice about this level of involvement next time around? Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics.
Not to mention he entirely and utterly missed the point that was made.
To help: the question isn't "why are they sanctioning russia" but "why are they limiting trumps possibilities for a veto".
|
On July 28 2017 08:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 08:26 Tachion wrote:
Kinda curious how #Russiagate deniers justify congress overwhelmingly passing the sanctions bill and limiting Trump's power to ease the sanctions. What possible reason is there to specifically limit Trump's ability to rework the sanctions unless they thought that he would make lopsided concessions with Russia? That's like a step away from directly stating that he's complicit. At the least it shows that they think his judgement is compromised when it comes to Russia. Pretty bold bipartisan statement. You're showing some pretty tortured logic here. I haven't heard a soul protest claims that Russia meddled in the election. We had the article detailing how past dovish policies emboldened Putin. Have you considered it's to punish Russia for things it did and set about making Putin think twice about this level of involvement next time around?
Literally everyone Trump still trusts and still works for him has actively pushed back against this using every possible epistemological argument a philosophy 101 19 year old could think up. "we can't know whether or not we know", "you are just trying to delegitimize Trump's win", "only 3-4 intel agencies says it was the Russians, not 17, so that makes it dubious", "you can't prove they changed any votes", "maybe the DNC colluded with the Russians and refuse to hand over their servers to the FBI", "the CIA also said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", "you are just anti-Russia", "if you were right, then shouldn't you be for full scale nuclear war with Russia? What a warmonger you are", "the media is engaged in hysteria over Russia, the real meddling was that treacherous Ukraine who keeps killing Russians in NovoRussia". No, you do not get to discount all of what Trump says, Trump's admin says, and what Trumpkins say in the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
