Will Trump attempt to veto sanctions?

Musburger1 said:
proof? There is still no proof that Russia hacked the DNC. None. Zero.'show the evidence.
Click to expand...
The DNC was hacked, yes. The FBI notified them they had been hacked several times, but yet the DNC to this day hasn't allowed the FBI to investigate. Crowdstrike, a less than reputable company, is in charge of that. There is growing speculation that Hillary's operatives in fact are responsible for the hacks. This would be connected to Wasserman-Schultz and Imran Awan. McCabe has still not released the 650,00 emails from Weiner's laptop. How did they get there and what is on them?
 
Musburger1 said:
Ask them if Russia hacked the DNC or ask them to provide evidence that Russia hacked the DNC?

Why would I believe a statement without evidence supporting it?
Click to expand...

Ask for both if you like. You're asking people to assume they didn't interfere based on nothing but Putin's self-serving denials.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Ask for both if you like. You're asking people to assume they didn't interfere based on nothing but Putin's self-serving denials.
Click to expand...
If there was proof, it would be shown all over every media source. But its not necessary to provide proof. Merely repeat lies over and over and millions of sheep like yourself respond accordingly.
 
Musburger1 said:
If there was proof, it would be shown all over every media source. But its not necessary to provide proof. Merely repeat lies over and over and millions of sheep like yourself respond accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they'd announce the proof if they wanted their sources to end up dead (and to never have a foreign source again).
 
An interesting anti-sanctions article that frankly makes a lot more sense than Musburger's premise.

Mus's premise is basically that we should respect and defer to Putin for two reasons. First, he's just really great. Basically every positive description you can come up with applies to Putin - very moral guy, loves his people, always tells the truth, smart, always has good intentions in everything he does, great dancer, big schlong, etc. (And of course, we're the opposite. We're supremely immoral, cheat our own people and people all over the world, never tell the truth, always have terrible intentions, can't dance worth a crap, and are a bunch of dickless and incompetent cowards.) Second, because he's so great, he and his country will succeed at whatever it does, and if he turns against us, he'll succeed at destroying us not through military defeat but through leverage, diplomatic expertise, economic prowess, and popularity. For example, if we piss him off with these sanctions, he'll use his massive leverage and mastery of diplomacy and alliances to make it so we can't get enriched uranium, etc. (as if we couldn't enrich it ourselves if we really had to).

The article's premise is that Russia is closer to collapse than to greatness - in a somewhat comparable position to the Ottoman Empire before WWI. His logic is that if we impose the sanctions, it might bring Russia to its knees to such an extent that it starts looking at dangerous alliances and could collapse, causing massive calamity and danger on the way down. Frankly, that line of thinking makes more sense. If you look at Russia's GDP, they've gotten clobbered. People point to the Great Recession in the US as a big deal, but the Russian economic collapse was bigger than anything to hit the US since the early 1930s and far more abrupt.
 
Mr. Deez said:
An interesting anti-sanctions article that frankly makes a lot more sense than Musburger's premise.

Mus's premise is basically that we should respect and defer to Putin for two reasons. First, he's just really great. Basically every positive description you can come up with applies to Putin - very moral guy, loves his people, always tells the truth, smart, always has good intentions in everything he does, great dancer, big schlong, etc. (And of course, we're the opposite. We're supremely immoral, cheat our own people and people all over the world, never tell the truth, always have terrible intentions, can't dance worth a crap, and are a bunch of dickless and incompetent cowards.) Second, because he's so great, he and his country will succeed at whatever it does, and if he turns against us, he'll succeed at destroying us not through military defeat but through leverage, diplomatic expertise, economic prowess, and popularity. For example, if we piss him off with these sanctions, he'll use his massive leverage and mastery of diplomacy and alliances to make it so we can't get enriched uranium, etc. (as if we couldn't enrich it ourselves if we really had to).

The article's premise is that Russia is closer to collapse than to greatness - in a somewhat comparable position to the Ottoman Empire before WWI. His logic is that if we impose the sanctions, it might bring Russia to its knees to such an extent that it starts looking at dangerous alliances and could collapse, causing massive calamity and danger on the way down. Frankly, that line of thinking makes more sense. If you look at Russia's GDP, they've gotten clobbered. People point to the Great Recession in the US as a big deal, but the Russian economic collapse was bigger than anything to hit the US since the early 1930s and far more abrupt.
Click to expand...
Good article. He states several premises as facts, which in reality are merely assumptions, but in general he is headed in the right direction.

Where I disagree is your assessment of where I'm coming from. My main points aren't:
A) Putin is great the US is evil, or
B) Russian success is inevitable so back off.

This is where I'm coming from:
A) The US is militarily and monetarily over extended and continuing the present course will most likely lead to nuclear exchange at the worst, and imperial collapse at the least.

B) The present course is moving the US away from civilian leadership and toward military leadership. Power is increasingly winding up in the hands of oligarchal interest groups and military policy, not just strategy, controlled by the military and intelligence community rather than the President.

Expounding on the latter, from where I sit the military leadership not only advises the President, they now control and dictate the policy. This didn't originate under Trump but certainly at least as far back as George Bush if not further.
 
Side note. One of criticisms within Russia toward Putin is that he takes too long to respond to US aggression.
In some circles he's being compared with Chamberlain as an appeaser. The mood within Russia as a whole isn't one of contrition, but becoming a mood of anger toward the US. That seems to be just fine with the US government our media, and the brain-washed public. What happens when we end up with what we are asking for?
 
Mr. Deez said:
An interesting anti-sanctions article that frankly makes a lot more sense than Musburger's premise.

Mus's premise is basically that we should respect and defer to Putin for two reasons. First, he's just really great. Basically every positive description you can come up with applies to Putin - very moral guy, loves his people, always tells the truth, smart, always has good intentions in everything he does, great dancer, big schlong, etc. (And of course, we're the opposite. We're supremely immoral, cheat our own people and people all over the world, never tell the truth, always have terrible intentions, can't dance worth a crap, and are a bunch of dickless and incompetent cowards.) Second, because he's so great, he and his country will succeed at whatever it does, and if he turns against us, he'll succeed at destroying us not through military defeat but through leverage, diplomatic expertise, economic prowess, and popularity. For example, if we piss him off with these sanctions, he'll use his massive leverage and mastery of diplomacy and alliances to make it so we can't get enriched uranium, etc. (as if we couldn't enrich it ourselves if we really had to).

The article's premise is that Russia is closer to collapse than to greatness - in a somewhat comparable position to the Ottoman Empire before WWI. His logic is that if we impose the sanctions, it might bring Russia to its knees to such an extent that it starts looking at dangerous alliances and could collapse, causing massive calamity and danger on the way down. Frankly, that line of thinking makes more sense. If you look at Russia's GDP, they've gotten clobbered. People point to the Great Recession in the US as a big deal, but the Russian economic collapse was bigger than anything to hit the US since the early 1930s and far more abrupt.
Click to expand...

The sanctions combined with the low price of oil is significantly impacting the Russian economy. More importantly, in an economy built on Putin's cronyism, it has to be hurting his ability to buy off the loyal oligarchs. I'm not ready to pronounce what we are seeing is the last gasp of the death of Russia but the US is a useful distraction tool from the economic situation for the regular Russian.
 
Tillerson speaks out.

http://theduran.com/tillerson-says-trump-unhappy-new-anti-russia-sanctions/

"The action by the Congress to put these sanctions in place and the way they did, neither the President nor I are very happy about that. We were clear that we didn’t think it was going to be helpful to our efforts. But that’s the decision they made. They made it in a very overwhelming way. I think the President accepts that, and all indications are he will sign that, that bill. And then we’ll just work with it, and that’s kind of my view is we’ll work with it. We got it. We can’t let it take us off track of trying to restore the relationship."
 
Quote from Trump:

“By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together,” Trump stated after signing the bill into law.
 
Musburger1 said:
Quote from Trump:

“By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together,” Trump stated after signing the bill into law.
Click to expand...

If that's really how he feels, he should have said so when the bill was under consideration and vetoed the bill and forced an override.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If that's really how he feels, he should have said so when the bill was under consideration and vetoed the bill and forced an override.
Click to expand...

I think the WH did voice their displeasure with this legislation during the process but that was lost in the WH chaos. DJT wasn't willing to use his bully pulpit to escalate this issue but rather chose to focus on other stuff like advocating for police officers to be "rough" with suspects and talking about his wild parties in the 80's/his election victory with the BSA.
 
Musburger1 said:
Quote from Trump:

“By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together,” Trump stated after signing the bill into law.
Click to expand...

He also said this: “I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization,” Trump said.

The problem is that he's not being truthful. In every opportunity to address the interference Trump equivocated which is what led directly to this legislation. Anyone remember "it could have been the Russians...it could have been many other countries" line? How 'bout "we talked to Putin directly and he said he didn't do it so now it's time to move on"? [paraphrasing]
 
Seattle Husker said:
I think the WH did voice their displeasure with this legislation during the process but that was lost in the WH chaos. DJT wasn't willing to use his bully pulpit to escalate this issue but rather chose to focus on other stuff like advocating for police officers to be "rough" with suspects and talking about his wild parties in the 80's/his election victory with the BSA.
Click to expand...

This image represents DJT and why nobody heard his administrations' concerns for the Russia meddling interference.
uKbZJFP.jpg
 
Prime Minister Medvedev:



The signing of new sanctions against Russia into law by the US president leads to several consequences. First, any hope of improving our relations with the new US administration is over. Second, the US just declared a full-scale trade war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration demonstrated it is utterly powerless, and in the most humiliating manner transferred executive powers to Congress. This shifts the alignment of forces in US political circles.

What does this mean for the U.S.? The American establishment completely outplayed Trump. The president is not happy with the new sanctions, but he could not avoid signing the new law. The purpose of the new sanctions was to put Trump in his place. Their ultimate goal is to remove Trump from power. An incompetent player must be eliminated. At the same time, the interests of American businesses were almost ignored. Politics rose above the pragmatic approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has turned into a key part of not only foreign (as has been the case many times), but also domestic US policy (this is recent).

The sanctions codified into law will now last for decades, unless some miracle occurs. Moreover, it will be tougher than the Jackson-Vanik law, because it is comprehensive and can not be postponed by special orders of the president without the consent of the Congress. Therefore, the future relationship between the Russian Federation and the United States will be extremely tense, regardless of the composition of the Congress or the personality of the president. Relations between the two countries will now be clarified in international bodies and courts of justice leading to further intensification of international tensions, and a refusal to resolve major international problems.

What does this mean for Russia? We will continue to work on the development of the economy and social sphere, we will deal with import substitution, solve the most important state tasks, counting primarily on ourselves. We have learned to do this in recent years. Within almost closed financial markets, foreign creditors and investors will be afraid to invest in Russia due to worries of sanctions against third parties and countries. In some ways, it will benefit us, although sanctions - in general - are meaningless. We will manage.
 
Musburger1 said:
Prime Minister Medvedev:



The signing of new sanctions against Russia into law by the US president leads to several consequences. First, any hope of improving our relations with the new US administration is over. Second, the US just declared a full-scale trade war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration demonstrated it is utterly powerless, and in the most humiliating manner transferred executive powers to Congress. This shifts the alignment of forces in US political circles.

What does this mean for the U.S.? The American establishment completely outplayed Trump. The president is not happy with the new sanctions, but he could not avoid signing the new law. The purpose of the new sanctions was to put Trump in his place. Their ultimate goal is to remove Trump from power. An incompetent player must be eliminated. At the same time, the interests of American businesses were almost ignored. Politics rose above the pragmatic approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has turned into a key part of not only foreign (as has been the case many times), but also domestic US policy (this is recent).

The sanctions codified into law will now last for decades, unless some miracle occurs. Moreover, it will be tougher than the Jackson-Vanik law, because it is comprehensive and can not be postponed by special orders of the president without the consent of the Congress. Therefore, the future relationship between the Russian Federation and the United States will be extremely tense, regardless of the composition of the Congress or the personality of the president. Relations between the two countries will now be clarified in international bodies and courts of justice leading to further intensification of international tensions, and a refusal to resolve major international problems.

What does this mean for Russia? We will continue to work on the development of the economy and social sphere, we will deal with import substitution, solve the most important state tasks, counting primarily on ourselves. We have learned to do this in recent years. Within almost closed financial markets, foreign creditors and investors will be afraid to invest in Russia due to worries of sanctions against third parties and countries. In some ways, it will benefit us, although sanctions - in general - are meaningless. We will manage.
Click to expand...

Our collective response: "Stay the **** out of our elections!"
 
Musburger1 said:
Nobody messes more with other countries elections than the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that point. That doesn't mean we have to accept it. We have the benefit of more weapons (political, economic and military) than other countries so the ramification of messing with our elections can be much more severe.
 
Musburger1 said:
Nobody messes more with other countries elections than the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Click to expand...

That's really not the point. Lots of countries get involved in foreign elections to various degrees. However, when you're caught red-handed doing it to a country that's hostile to you, there are consequences.
 
I draw the line here. This isn't an appropriate response to the DNC hack, and it shouldn't be done suddenly or lightly. This has major military and national security implications and should only be done (if at all) after very careful and extensive deliberation and after formally withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Not a fan of how it's progressing right now.
 
How many Russians have died of, mostly, mysterious circumstances since 11/8/2016? 8 or so. And, they say, that Kisliak would love to defect but his FSB handlers won't leave his side. When he gets back to mother Russia...tick...tock...
 
Mr. Deez said:
I draw the line here. This isn't an appropriate response to the DNC hack, and it shouldn't be done suddenly or lightly. This has major military and national security implications and should only be done (if at all) after very careful and extensive deliberation and after formally withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Not a fan of how it's progressing right now.
Click to expand...
That's a sign to me that the worm is turning on the administration from the GOP controlled Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top