|
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. |
On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all.
Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election.
|
On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election.
The ever shifting goal posts return. Really they never stopped moving.
|
On July 28 2017 09:27 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:20 Danglars wrote:Surprise, surprise. 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. 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. No. The sanctions are deserved and should've come way earlier. What is a slap of Trump is the fact that this bill will make it impossible for him to ease sanctions without approval. You do grasp what that means, right? Again, you're deflecting to "gop is voting on sanctions so your logic is flawed", that's not the point. The point is that republicans actively are voting on a bill that makes it impossible for the president to fuck with said and previous sanctions. Is it good legislation? Hell yes. Is that literally a dick-kick for Trump? Oh yeah. Not to mention, this "check" as you put it (i'd call it "limit").. Since it's such good legislation, could you cite prior presidents who got taken certain powers away? Because i can't recall Obama being babysitted, or bush - although in fairness, i never bothered to check so i might be wrong. edit: most likely this is clearer than i could explain it Show nested quote +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.
Ahh very interesting. You've got a point there with the effect of "don't you even try."
|
On July 28 2017 09:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election. The ever shifting goal posts return.
You going to make a point here anytime soon?
What's your context?
::The thread
Haha you think people here didn't doubt Russia meddled in the election
*crickets*
Haha you're just going to shift goalposts!
*crickets*
My God, man.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 28 2017 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:16 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:39 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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". 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. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sanctions-idUSKBN1AC1U8The 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.
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). Lol. It's just a consequence of ANY bill that passes with high support. The president knows it's futile to veto because they have the support to override it if he so chooses. Now, lay out your clause and why you think it specifically tells the president to fuck off. All I've seen now is great bill wins high support and action against it would be futile.
Okay, since i know you like to play blind and deaf, here a full explanation so you'd need to take at least 3 minutes to come up with some bullshit as to why this somehow is not what every single media outlet and common sense make it out to be. Here we go. Oh and i'm citing directly from the bill, so don't even try to go there.
This is the passage for iran.
This bill directs the President to impose sanctions against: (1) Iran's ballistic missile or weapons of mass destruction programs, (2) the sale or transfer to Iran of military equipment or the provision of related technical or financial assistance, and (3) Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated foreign persons.
The President may impose sanctions against persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in Iran.
The President may temporarily waive the imposition or continuation of sanctions under specified circumstances.
Quite straight forward, i'll actually mark the important passage here. Now look at what's in that bill in regards to russia.
Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017
The President must submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation.
Specified executive order sanctions against Russia shall remain in effect.
Marked the specific part again. Wanna continue arguing, or do you understand why i'm saying they're fucking with Trump? And if you have any answer other than "okay, yeah, they do", then i'll expect you to show some form of equivalent procedure with other presidents, after i did your work to check if the passage i cited is real or not.
|
On July 28 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:33 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election. The ever shifting goal posts return. You going to make a point here anytime soon? What's your context? ::The thread Haha you think people here didn't doubt Russia meddled in the election *crickets* Haha you're just going to shift goalposts! *crickets* My God, man.
I'm still dealing with you being unable to remember most of legal lord's output for the last 5 months or so. Not a single soul is strong language.
|
|
|
That title should have a question mark, because she should still be asking herself that at the very least.
|
I'm sure the leadership and president will rush to their defense.
Any day now......
|
My current hypothesis for why hacking is to drive a wedge between the US and Europe. That does of course come with the problem that to really blossom that gambit would require that Trump wins, which was a 20-30% likelihood. I suppose the question that needs to be asked to determine what the other 70-80% proposition would look like is, what would a Hillary presidency be like? Probably endless Benghazis and endless shows of non-consensus, but it would be more FP-coherent than this nonsense.
Saying that it was to "undermine faith in electoral institutions" is kind of a sidestep that doesn't do much to explain the "to what end" aspect of taking such an aggressive approach. Chaos may be helpful, but not without some sort of end goal in mind for cultivating a cesspool of stupid.
|
On July 28 2017 09:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:33 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 08:32 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election. The ever shifting goal posts return. You going to make a point here anytime soon? What's your context? ::The thread Haha you think people here didn't doubt Russia meddled in the election *crickets* Haha you're just going to shift goalposts! *crickets* My God, man. I'm still dealing with you being unable to remember most of legal lord's output for the last 5 months or so. Not a single soul is strong language.
Feel free to nail it down for me when you get the chance. I thought he more or less thought it was justified, all things considered. I thought others quickly wised up when it wasn't just the couple anonymous leakers. When it was ripe for judgment, so to speak. But let's calm down about these preassertions of goalpost shifting and shock and awe, it's unbecoming.
|
On July 28 2017 09:40 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:28 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:16 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:39 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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". 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. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sanctions-idUSKBN1AC1U8The 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.
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). Lol. It's just a consequence of ANY bill that passes with high support. The president knows it's futile to veto because they have the support to override it if he so chooses. Now, lay out your clause and why you think it specifically tells the president to fuck off. All I've seen now is great bill wins high support and action against it would be futile. Okay, since i know you like to play blind and deaf, here a full explanation so you'd need to take at least 3 minutes to come up with some bullshit as to why this somehow is not what every single media outlet and common sense make it out to be. Here we go. Oh and i'm citing directly from the bill, so don't even try to go there. This is the passage for iran. Show nested quote +This bill directs the President to impose sanctions against: (1) Iran's ballistic missile or weapons of mass destruction programs, (2) the sale or transfer to Iran of military equipment or the provision of related technical or financial assistance, and (3) Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated foreign persons.
The President may impose sanctions against persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in Iran.
The President may temporarily waive the imposition or continuation of sanctions under specified circumstances. Quite straight forward, i'll actually mark the important passage here. Now look at what's in that bill in regards to russia. Show nested quote +Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017
The President must submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation.
Specified executive order sanctions against Russia shall remain in effect. Marked the specific part again. Wanna continue arguing, or do you understand why i'm saying they're fucking with Trump? And if you have any answer other than "okay, yeah, they do", then i'll expect you to show some form of equivalent procedure with other presidents, after i did your work to check if the passage i cited is real or not.
Answered in previous post since we had been responding double. I didn't see the separate treatment on my first read-through of the articles. Apologies.
|
United States43513 Posts
On July 28 2017 09:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:10 Nyxisto wrote:On July 28 2017 09:05 Plansix wrote:
Yes. It's the hoops. That is the problem, ethical requirements. 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? Orwellian evokes a level of cool competence that can never describe this administration.
I dunno, Big Brother never really gave a fuck. "We have always been at war with Eurasia" isn't slick, quite the opposite, it's nakedly false and dares the populace to deny it. Airstrip One just gaslit its people.
|
On July 28 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:40 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:33 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election. The ever shifting goal posts return. You going to make a point here anytime soon? What's your context? ::The thread Haha you think people here didn't doubt Russia meddled in the election *crickets* Haha you're just going to shift goalposts! *crickets* My God, man. I'm still dealing with you being unable to remember most of legal lord's output for the last 5 months or so. Not a single soul is strong language. Feel free to nail it down for me when you get the chance. I thought he more or less thought it was justified, all things considered. I thought others quickly wised up when it wasn't just the couple anonymous leakers. When it was ripe for judgment, so to speak. But let's calm down about these preassertions of goalpost shifting and shock and awe, it's unbecoming.
Ah, the "No, you go back and check the thread." defense.
|
On July 28 2017 09:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:40 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 09:28 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:16 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 09:09 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:39 m4ini wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote: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". 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. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sanctions-idUSKBN1AC1U8The 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.
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). Lol. It's just a consequence of ANY bill that passes with high support. The president knows it's futile to veto because they have the support to override it if he so chooses. Now, lay out your clause and why you think it specifically tells the president to fuck off. All I've seen now is great bill wins high support and action against it would be futile. Okay, since i know you like to play blind and deaf, here a full explanation so you'd need to take at least 3 minutes to come up with some bullshit as to why this somehow is not what every single media outlet and common sense make it out to be. Here we go. Oh and i'm citing directly from the bill, so don't even try to go there. This is the passage for iran. This bill directs the President to impose sanctions against: (1) Iran's ballistic missile or weapons of mass destruction programs, (2) the sale or transfer to Iran of military equipment or the provision of related technical or financial assistance, and (3) Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated foreign persons.
The President may impose sanctions against persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in Iran.
The President may temporarily waive the imposition or continuation of sanctions under specified circumstances. Quite straight forward, i'll actually mark the important passage here. Now look at what's in that bill in regards to russia. Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017
The President must submit for congressional review certain proposed actions to terminate or waive sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation.
Specified executive order sanctions against Russia shall remain in effect. Marked the specific part again. Wanna continue arguing, or do you understand why i'm saying they're fucking with Trump? And if you have any answer other than "okay, yeah, they do", then i'll expect you to show some form of equivalent procedure with other presidents, after i did your work to check if the passage i cited is real or not. Answered in previous post since we had been responding double. I didn't see the separate treatment on my first read-through of the articles. Apologies.
Ah didn't see that, nbd.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr3364/summary
For anyone who's interested, that's the bill.
|
On July 28 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 09:40 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:33 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:30 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:26 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 09:10 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On July 28 2017 08:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Where have you not heard this? In this thread? In reality? I need specifics. In this thread. Which looking back was not the clear context for his post. What thread have you been posting in? 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. Are you for real right now? No one in this thread voiced doubts it was Russia? No one at all. Meddling is a pretty low bar, friend. I'm in the camp that thinks Putin did his schtick to undermine Americans faith in their institutions. He wins no matter who won the election. The ever shifting goal posts return. You going to make a point here anytime soon? What's your context? ::The thread Haha you think people here didn't doubt Russia meddled in the election *crickets* Haha you're just going to shift goalposts! *crickets* My God, man. I'm still dealing with you being unable to remember most of legal lord's output for the last 5 months or so. Not a single soul is strong language. Feel free to nail it down for me when you get the chance. I thought he more or less thought it was justified, all things considered. I thought others quickly wised up when it wasn't just the couple anonymous leakers. When it was ripe for judgment, so to speak. But let's calm down about these preassertions of goalpost shifting and shock and awe, it's unbecoming.
The unvarnished truth often is. A painful reminder that we often do not live up to the standards we set for others.
|
It's almost an hour since the last "BREAKING:".
What's going on, WH asleep? What time's it in Washington? Maybe i should get myself a tweeter account, easier than relying on Stealthblue for breaking news. :D
|
The title and conclusion all in front. Why even buy.
|
What the fuck? He is the dumbest man alive?
|
On July 28 2017 10:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The title and conclusion all in front. Why even buy.
There's no suspense to reading it. Should have billed it as a choose your own ending book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9050
3717
1159
EPT
