US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8221

On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:

Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics.

On July 28 2017 08:39 Wulfey_LA wrote:


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.

On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:

Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics.

On July 28 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/npr/status/890719955985059840

Yes. It's the hoops. That is the problem, ethical requirements.

On July 28 2017 08:39 m4ini wrote:


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 09:05 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/npr/status/890719955985059840

Yes. It's the hoops. That is the problem, ethical requirements.

On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:

In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post.

On July 28 2017 08:59 Tachion wrote:

Wasn't it just a couple days ago that Scaramucchi said that if Russia had done the hacking, that they're so good that we would have never found out? Implying that they weren't behind it. I mean, I guess I just spend too much time in the dark corners of twitter and news comments, cause I still see a lot of people questioning if Russia was behind it.
+ Show Spoiler +

On July 28 2017 09:10 Nyxisto wrote:


Ethical people are kept out of office by ethics requirements. Is there a word when "Orwellian" isn't strong enough to describe the situation any more?

On July 28 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:

Uhh big support for bills reflects how people agree it's a good idea. Where the fuck are you getting these "limiting Trumps possibilities for a veto" jazz. Seriously, though.

The bill, which includes a provision that allows Congress to stop any effort by Trump to ease existing sanctions on Russia, will now be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law or veto.

On July 28 2017 08:45 m4ini wrote:
He's not entirely wrong you know. Except he shouldn't be proud of it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-russia-hackers-republicans-229572

Apart from the fact that "Trump" certainly is a person who denied meddling, many republicans do accept that russians fucked with the election.

They just don't give a shit because it possibly netted the win. Yeah, they're sanctioning now, which is an opportunist move, nothing more.

edit:

but the original question was not "why are they sanctioning now, is that an admittance of guilt?" which is the question Danglars tried to deflect to even though it wasn't even implied. The question was why are republicans on board with fucking with Trump on this one.

On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:

What thread have you been posting in?

On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:

I haven't heard doubts in this thread that Russia meddled in the election. Looking back again at what Tachion wrote, he could have been referring to political figures not thread posters.

On July 28 2017 09:20 Danglars wrote:

Surprise, surprise.


Are you seriously arguing that the sanctions are deserved, but the timing makes it a slap of Trump? Second try: Russia deserves this, and your imputation of Republican hyperpartisanship with Trump is faulty. It's simply good legislation in their eyes. To the extent that Trump & admin figures dithered on the blame, you're right, and I'll grant you that. You're just going way overboard with it outright ducking with Trump--who cares, this is a good check on actions that most Republicans agree on.

Faced with near-unanimous bipartisan support for the bill in both the House and Senate, the president finds his hands are tied, according to two administration officials and two advisers with knowledge of the discussions.

The officials added that the president has been reluctant to proceed with the bill, even after it was revised last week to include some changes that American and European companies sought to ensure that business deals were not stifled by new sanctions. Trump has privately expressed frustration over Congress' ability to limit or override the power of the White House on national security matters, saying that it is complicating efforts to coordinate with allies — particularly those in Europe that have taken a different approach to sanctions.

"There is a tremendous and unprecedented effort by Congress to assert its influence on Russia and foreign policy because it does not trust the president," said Elizabeth Rosenberg, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former senior adviser at the Treasury Department.

"Lawmakers are so distrustful of the administration that they are imposing requirements to conduct congressional review of attempts by the president to roll back sanctions, and in some instances prevent him from doing so," Rosenberg said.

On July 28 2017 09:16 m4ini wrote:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sanctions-idUSKBN1AC1U8



Lets rephrase. Not "limiting to veto" because effectively it's veto proof (had that explained to me).

Literally making it impossible for Trump to ease said sanctions would've been more accurate.

Now you tell me, how many sanctions were voted for other presidents to sign that included a clause effectively telling the president to fuck off?

edit:

Sidenote, it's only fair to mention that this bill, that has "big support" and reflects "how people think it's a good idea".. Have a guess who's against it (but can't help it).