President Trump Signs Sanction Bill

[esmith]

So politically useful, but the conspiracy is still alive?

Of course it is, it will never go away in the minds of the afflicted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course it is, it will never go away in the minds of the afflicted.

The great thing about a conspiracy is that it can never be disproven.
A friend is still convinced that Obama is a Muslim secret agent bent
on destroying Americastan.

 

[Falvlun]

So politically useful, but the conspiracy is still alive?

Why would signing a bill that was going to pass regardless have any effect on the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia?

We have piece after piece of evidence that Trump's campaign had questionable ties with Russia- that you have continually dismissed-- and we have one instance of Trump being forced to go against Russia's interests and you pounce on it as the only proof needed to kill the possibility of collusion.

If you were being equitable in your assessment of evidence, at best all you could say is that the jury is still out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would signing a bill that was going to pass regardless have any effect on the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia?

The bill harms Russia's interests.
If Trump were really Putin's puppet (as some have claimed), I'd expect determined opposition.

We have piece after piece of evidence that Trump's campaign had questionable ties with Russia- that you have continually dismissed--

Even you just described his ties as "questionable".
This is a poor basis for believing the conspiracy claim.
So I dismiss such ties as constituting proof.

and we have one instance of Trump being forced to go against Russia's interests
and you pounce on it as the only proof needed to kill the possibility of collusion.

Pounce?
I never said anything approaching the underlined text.

If you were being equitable in your assessment of evidence, at best all you could say is that the jury is still out.

The jury is still out.
That sums up what I've been saying all along, ie, it's premature to leap to judgement.

 

[metis]

compare the news sources
President Trump signs Russia sanctions bill
Trump signs Russia sanctions bill - CNNPolitics.com
Trump signs Russia sanctions bill into law
Trump signs Russia sanctions bill he blasts as 'clearly unconstitutional'
Trump signs sweeping sanctions bill targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea
Trump Signs New Sanctions Bill Against Russia, Iran and N. Korea

I appreciate the variety of sources you have been posting recently. It helps!

Ditto! Hey, I guess an old dog can indeed learn new tricks-- right @esmith from another old dog but not one as old as you!

 

[metis]

BTW, did anyone notice that even though this was a significant piece of legislation with significant implications, Trump didn't have any signing ceremony like he did with the e.o.'s, nor has he offered any explanation whatsoever for his signing it. Why?

Well, I think some of us pretty much have an idea as to why this is likely the case, and I believe it likely goes well beyond their bromance.

 

[Stanyon]

So far Putin is undecided about running for president in 2018, Trumps signing off on the sanctions shows he is willing to compromise his personal take to conform to the will of the people through their democratically elected representatives. All in all I see the sanctions as a way for congress to show the people of the U.S. that they are doing something/anything about the claims of vote interference/influence by Russia however dubious they might be. We have seen a lot of claims of vote influence by Russian officials and so called "trolls" on message boards (basically anyone that did not speak positively of Hillary) which no-one has actually been able to put a smoking gun on the table but we citizens of the U.S. sure should be upset about the possibility of a foreign power attempting to do so. As far as a smoking gun with Russian influence we have seen none but we do have one of attempted vote influence from Barrack Obama urging French voters to elect Emmanuel Macron, could you imagine if this were Putin who went on CNN and urged U.S. citizens to vote for Trump before the election? Of course Obama was not the president at the time but considering he was fresh out of office this would seem to be about the same as if he was.

 

[metis]

As far as a smoking gun with Russian influence we have seen none but we do have one of attempted vote influence from Barrack Obama urging French voters to elect Emmanuel Macron, could you imagine if this were Putin who went on CNN and urged U.S. citizens to vote for Trump before the election?

That's really not the same as "collusion".

BTW, you might consider using sentences instead of one log paragraph because its appearance is one of just a mass of words.

 

[sun rise]

So politically useful, but the conspiracy is still alive?

I assume he did it to make a signing statement.

 

[sun rise]

The bill harms Russia's interests.
If Trump were really Putin's puppet (as some have claimed), I'd expect determined opposition.

Even you just described his ties as "questionable".
This is a poor basis for believing the conspiracy claim.
So I dismiss such ties as constituting proof.

Pounce?
I never said anything approaching the underlined text.

The jury is still out.
That sums up what I've been saying all along, ie, it's premature to leap to judgement.

There was determined opposition that was totally overridden by Congress.

 

[Stanyon]

That's really not the same as "collusion"

Within the parametres of the rules Trump's opposition appear to have been using to attempt to discredit his administration for months, yes it is. I ask again if it were Putin appealing to the American people to vote for Trump on CNN instead of Obama appealing to the French to vote for Macron on France24 what do you think the response would have been?

 

[metis]

Within the parametres of the rules Trump's opposition appear to have been using to attempt to discredit his administration for months, yes it is.

The Dems don't need to try and discredit Trump because he's doing a marvelous job of doing that to himself.

Being in opposition to a sitting president is not at all unusual, such as McConnell saying that he would do anything to try and stop Obama winning a second term. BTW, how did that turn out?

I ask again if it were Putin appealing to the American people to vote for Trump on CNN instead of Obama appealing to the French to vote for Macron on France24 what do you think the response would have been?

Since Putin undoubtedly does not have any interest in making the U.S. stronger, it would not be an ethical violation but certainly wouldn't be very welcome-- except to Trump, as we've seen over and over again.

Leaders in other countries often do have their favorites, and we do much the same to them, such as Trump's endorsement of LePen in France, May in the U.K., and then criticism of Merkel in Germany, Trudeau in Canada-- need I go on? Did those upset you, Stanyon?

 

[Stanyon]

Being in opposition to a sitting president is not at all unusual

Of course it isn't, only two sides have a real chance of getting elected so the dogs will be dogs and fight amongst themselves as do those that support them.

Since Putin undoubtedly does not have any interest in making the U.S. stronger, it would not be an ethical violation but certainly wouldn't be very welcome

Especially among U.S. voters on both sides of the aisle, I would imagine the response to Putin giving a glowing endorsement of Trump on an American news channel would have caused him a lot of votes.

Leaders in other countries often do have their favorites, and we do much the same to them, such as Trump's endorsement of LePen in France, May in the U.K., and then criticism of Merkel in Germany, Trudeau in Canada

Of course leaders in other countries have their favourites but to equal the support of a candidate from a foreign leader with collusion seems a stretch of the imagination and that is my point. In the case of the video we a have a concrete example of endorsement vs. he might, they may have, it's possible. It seems a bit hypocritical to me to cry wolf at unproven claims yet pass off real examples as just another day in the office because you happen to agree with it.

The U.S. supported rebels in Syria under the guise of freedom fighters and they have been committing the same atrocities as those we call terrorists, it's a false and transparent morality.

 

[Falvlun]

So far Putin is undecided about running for president in 2018, Trumps signing off on the sanctions shows he is willing to compromise his personal take to conform to the will of the people through their democratically elected representatives. All in all I see the sanctions as a way for congress to show the people of the U.S. that they are doing something/anything about the claims of vote interference/influence by Russia however dubious they might be. We have seen a lot of claims of vote influence by Russian officials and so called "trolls" on message boards (basically anyone that did not speak positively of Hillary) which no-one has actually been able to put a smoking gun on the table but we citizens of the U.S. sure should be upset about the possibility of a foreign power attempting to do so. As far as a smoking gun with Russian influence we have seen none but we do have one of attempted vote influence from Barrack Obama urging French voters to elect Emmanuel Macron, could you imagine if this were Putin who went on CNN and urged U.S. citizens to vote for Trump before the election? Of course Obama was not the president at the time but considering he was fresh out of office this would seem to be about the same as if he was.

It is the conclusion of the FBI, CIA, and NSA that the Russian government waged an influence campaign in the 2016 election, to destabilize our democracy, to hurt Clinton's electability, and to promote Trump.

The smoking gun is old news: the Russians worked to influence our election. We just don't know for sure whether Trump or members of his campaign were in on it.

 

[Falvlun]

The bill harms Russia's interests.
If Trump were really Putin's puppet (as some have claimed), I'd expect determined opposition.

Can you explain how Trump's refusal to sign the bill would have helped Russia's interests? If he vetoed it, the veto would have been over-ridden. If he just didn't sign it, it would have passed into law regardless. Either action would have made Trump appear weak and guilty, which would further weaken his usefulness to Russia, and fail to prevent harm to Russia.

Even you just described his ties as "questionable".
This is a poor basis for believing the conspiracy claim.
So I dismiss such ties as constituting proof.

I was using the word "questionable" to mean "of doubtful propriety, morality, honesty, or respectability".

You seem to have a chicken and egg problem. You want it to be proven before deigning to entertain the possibility, but you dismiss all the evidence because it hasn't been proven. How do you expect to prove something if you don't accept anything as evidence?

Pounce?
I never said anything approaching the underlined text.

You expressed skepticism that the conspiracy could still be alive after Trump signed the sanctions bill.

The jury is still out.
That sums up what I've been saying all along, ie, it's premature to leap to judgement.

I agree, but your position is not neutral. You call it a " conspiracy" to deride the possibility, dismiss evidence that points towards collusion, and quickly affirm evidence that may show the opposite.

 

[Stanyon]

It is the conclusion of the FBI, CIA, and NSA that the Russian government waged an influence campaign in the 2016 election, to destabilize our democracy, to hurt Clinton's electability, and to promote Trump.

And how exactly did they go about this influence campaign? The ODNI report basically boiled down to this:

Some trolls who may or may not have been Russians made some unfavourable statements about Hillary Clinton and positive ones about Trump on various social media sites
This completely ignores the fact of pro-Hillary trolls from all over the globe that made unfavourable statements about Trump and the fact that maybe some people actually liked the guy.

RT news is bad because this one media outlet from Russia may have influenced people in the U.S. to vote for Trump
This completely ignores the almost 24/7 Hillary adoration campaign of CNN, MSNBC and others and the fact that the hordes of uneducated white men can't even read RT news much less even know it existed long before their televisions told them so, the educated white women must have read RT news because they overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

Because of the last two reasons the people who we think might have been Russians attempted to undermine democracy, but we aren't really sure about that either.
I'm 58 and I remember my grandfather saying politicians are all crooks, so I guess in my case my grandfather undermined democracy years ago- he beat them to it!

I'd say what we really need to be looking at in the west is the propagandists and their machinery at work in our own nations that are undermining democracy through lies, misrepresentations, and emotion based reporting and yes that includes FOX news as well. There was a high ranking general a few months back that was talking about RT news in a hearing about Russian influence in the U.S. and he stated during it that there were forces that were trying to undermine and upset the status quo, this was right before talks of possibly restricting certain media in the U.S.- (don't remember his name right off hand will try to find) does this language bother you at all? A high ranking U.S. military official openly saying that anything that might possibly change the view of the carefully cultivated general population might need to be restricted or censored- does any of this sound familiar?.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was determined opposition that was totally overridden by Congress.

And yet, Trump is signing the bill.

 

[Falvlun]

And how exactly did they go about this influence campaign? The ODNI report basically boiled down to this:

Some trolls who may or may not have been Russians made some unfavourable statements about Hillary Clinton and positive ones about Trump on various social media sites
This completely ignores the fact of pro-Hillary trolls from all over the globe that made unfavourable statements about Trump and the fact that maybe some people actually liked the guy.

RT news is bad because this one media outlet from Russia may have influenced people in the U.S. to vote for Trump
This completely ignores the almost 24/7 Hillary adoration campaign of CNN, MSNBC and others and the fact that the hordes of uneducated white men can't even read RT news much less even know it existed long before their televisions told them so, the educated white women must have read RT news because they overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

Because of the last two reasons the people who we think might have been Russians attempted to undermine democracy, but we aren't really sure about that either.
I'm 58 and I remember my grandfather saying politicians are all crooks, so I guess in my case my grandfather undermined democracy years ago- he beat them to it!

I'd say what we really need to be looking at in the west is the propagandists and their machinery at work in our own nations that are undermining democracy through lies, misrepresentations, and emotion based reporting and yes that includes FOX news as well. There was a high ranking general a few months back that was talking about RT news in a hearing about Russian influence in the U.S. and he stated during it that there were forces that were trying to undermine and upset the status quo, this was right before talks of possibly restricting certain media in the U.S.- (don't remember his name right off hand will try to find) does this language bother you at all? A high ranking U.S. military official openly saying that anything that might possibly change the view of the carefully cultivated general population might need to be restricted or censored- does any of this sound familiar?.

I don't know what the ODNI report is. But the joint report from the NSA, CIA, and FBI categorically stated that the Russians were behind a sophisticated active measures campaign to destabilize American democracy, harm the electability of Clinton, and promote Trump, via email hacks and a misinformation campaign. There was no "fuzz" on this.

It might be difficult for you or the average layperson to tease out where Russian influence ended and where American based media begins, but apparently our intelligence agency was able to do so with high confidence.

As for American media, yes, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. News media needs to be held to a higher standard than it currently enjoys. However, this problem does not mean we should ignore a foreign country attempting to manipulate the American populace into electing a particular person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you explain how Trump's refusal to sign the bill would have helped Russia's interests? If he vetoed it, the veto would have been over-ridden.

I don't see the over-ride as certain.
After the veto, he could've perhaps charmed some new votes to his side.

I was using the word "questionable" to mean "of doubtful propriety, morality, honesty, or respectability".

Are you arguing that there's no question about Trump's conspiracy with Russia, ie, that the evidence thereof is iron clad?

You seem to have a chicken and egg problem. You want it to be proven before deigning to entertain the possibility, but you dismiss all the evidence because it hasn't been proven. How do you expect to prove something if you don't accept anything as evidence?

You misunderstand.
I'm not dismissing any real evidence of collusion...I just haven't seen anything cromulent.
One shouldn't presume guilt based upon possibility or interpretation of appearances.

You expressed skepticism that the conspiracy could still be alive after Trump signed the sanctions bill.

Aye, I continue to be skeptical of the conspiracy.
Disbelief is the best default position regarding extraordinary unevidenced claims.

I agree, but your position is not neutral. You call it a " conspiracy" to deride the possibility, dismiss evidence that points towards collusion, and quickly affirm evidence that may show the opposite.

True, I am less than neutral, ie, I don't think Trump plotted with Putin to gain the presidency.
But I have the enviable position of not believing in something unevidenced.
A "conspiracy" is exactly the term to describe 2 parties colluding in secret to accomplish some goal.
It can be discomforting to call a spade a spade, removing the veneer of objectivity conferred by less direct language..

 

[Stanyon]

It might be difficult for you or the average layperson to tease out where Russian influence ended and where American based media begins, but apparently our intelligence agency was able to do so with high confidence.

I have used RT news as one of my many news sources to sift through for quite a while before and after it was ever mentioned in any news report because I've always felt it's good to have variety in your mental diet as it stops one from getting being backed up in constipated thinking. The funny thing is as powerful as the RT news propaganda machine is supposed to be I wasn't swayed to vote for Trump and if our intelligence services feel the Kremlins propaganda machine is as powerful as they claim it is I'm sure they would be taking notes on how to better their own.