Trump decides not to sanction Russia, against urging of Democrats and Republicans

I am unfortunately less surprised than I would like to be that there has seemingly been no mention of this that I can tell yet, so I'd like to pose the issue and see peoples opinions on the matter that seemingly is one of the few areas both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously agree on.

Fox News Article

Congress voted overwhelmingly to sanction Russia for their role in meddling in the US election (something that is agreed upon by both sides as occurring - save but for Trump himself); and by a 517-5 margin (from July legislation passed: the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act). Yet earlier this week (and quietly I may add) Trump decided that sanctions were not necessary, and that merely the 'threat' of sanctions were sufficient.

Additionally, the 'shame' list of crooked Russian oligarchs who were deemed to have procured their wealth through illicit or corrupt means was thrown away at the last minute by someone in the Trump administration and replaced by a copy/paste list from Forbes:

Fox News version of the Shame and Name list report, which of course doesn't make any mention of the expert created list being thrown out at the last minute.

The Guardian's version which references throwing out the expert constructed list in lieu of using the Forbes list.

I am certain there is a sizable portion of the ATS base that believes whatever Trump says 111%, but are there conservative or Republican voters that may or may not have voted/supported Trump who are worried that what is seemingly one of the few areas both the Democrats and Republican's can work together/agree on is being thwarted by Trump's word alone? It feels like I'm witness a murder suspect tell the jury that they shouldn't even hold a trial because he pinkie swears nothing happened.

This seems remarkably suspicious that for someone accused of being a Russian toadie to coincidentally 'adjust' a precedent of US policy to the benefit of Putin/Russia. I may dislike Republican doctrine, but I make no allusions that Russian meddling in the US system is of much graver implication that policy differences between D's and R's.

For a conspiracy forum I find it weirdly disconcerting that what is seemingly a occurrence akin to handing a conspiracy up to the public on a silver platter is being ignored on a site who's focus is just that.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Maybe we should make Putin tell the truth about the collusion between russia and the DNC

a reply to: visitedbythem

Would you believe anything Putin tells you?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

trump would be a smart coockie if hes doing that

This is proof that trump does not work for or with the Russians.

The sanctions have been a marvellous boom for Russia while negatively effecting many European countries.

If trump was working with Russia he would have added more sanctions to help them even more.

But, what's this I hear that the U.S. is receiving liquid gas shipments from Russia? Then ironically this is being shipped to Europe while charging them more than they would have paid for it from Russia.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

Why do you misrepresent the issue deliberately by only calling out the Democrats desire to sanction Russia? Unless you didn't read what I posted, I thought I made it pretty clear that support for the sanctions was practically Unanimous.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
This is proof that trump does not work for or with the Russians.

The sanctions have been a marvellous boom for Russia while negatively effecting many European countries.

If trump was working with Russia he would have added more sanctions to help them even more.

But, what's this I hear that the U.S. is receiving liquid gas shipments from Russia? Then ironically this is being shipped to Europe while charging them more than they would have paid for it from Russia.

This logic makes my brain hurt. Could you please explain to me how the sanctions are actually good for Russia?

Sanctions are an act of war, thus it makes sense that these silly sanctions have bipartisan support because Democrats and Republicans are war-mongers! I trust Trump more than I trust the same people who dragged us into war with Iraq, Afghanistan Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.

Even if the Russian govt ``hacked`` the U.S election (lol), how does sanctioning them help? It doesn't, it only hurts the ordinary people who live in Russia! Have some ###king compassion!

The 1980's are over, and we want our foreign policy back. Hussein agrees.

a reply to: rockdisjoint2

Have some ###king compassion!

Where have you been? That is only available for the illegal immigrants.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'm not a big fan of sanctions, as I think they do not really serve much of a purpose, but the inconsistency by many on issues such as this is concerning.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

Why do you misrepresent the issue deliberately by only calling out the Democrats desire to sanction Russia? Unless you didn't read what I posted, I thought I made it pretty clear that support for the sanctions was practically Unanimous.

Well yes, you are correct, the war mongering establishment from both parties wants to fight russia.

I am against that.

I bring up democrats because they were supposedly the party of peace, and they didnt want these wars. Not only that, but they are far more vocaal on how evil the russians are, going on and on every day about it, even going so far as to claim many issues americans are concerned with as the work of russian bots. This feverish demonization and agressiveness toward a country is the definition of xenophobic, but as usual they project there bloodlust on to trump and call him that.

Turns out they are no different than the war mongering neocons they claim to despise.

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
Sanctions are an act of war, thus it makes sense that these silly sanctions have bipartisan support because Democrats and Republicans are war-mongers! I trust Trump more than I trust the same people who dragged us into war with Iraq, Afghanistan Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.

Even if the Russian govt ``hacked`` the U.S election (lol), how does sanctioning them help? It doesn't, it only hurts the ordinary people who live in Russia! Have some ###king compassion!

This is your opinion, not a fact (of course you are entitled to it). I believe Sanctions function in several ways, but referencing your statement above squeezing the Russian people is a means of putting pressure on Putin since his position is in some part stabilized by the comfort of his population. I do, however, share your sentiment and I hold no ill-will towards the Russian people themselves, but rather Putin and his Oligarch cronies.

The vote on sanctions against Russia was held back in July of last year, when all of the hype and psychosis was passing around that Russia was responsible for everything from hacking paper election votes, to causing natural disasters.

Since then, it has been shown that all of this nonsense didn't necessarily happen, and was either overly exaggerated or completely made up altogether.

That being the case...... Why would he impose sanctions?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

Why do you misrepresent the issue deliberately by only calling out the Democrats desire to sanction Russia? Unless you didn't read what I posted, I thought I made it pretty clear that support for the sanctions was practically Unanimous.

Well yes, you are correct, the war mongering establishment from both parties wants to fight russia.

I am against that.

I bring up democrats because they were supposedly the party of peace, and they didnt want these wars. Not only that, but they are far more vocaal on how evil the russians are, going on and on every day about it, even going so far as to claim many issues americans are concerned with as the work of russian bots. This feverish demonization and agressiveness toward a country is the definition of xenophobic, but as usual they project there bloodlust on to trump and call him that.

Turns out they are no different than the war mongering neocons they claim to despise.

Are you suggesting that Trump's word is more sacrosanct that every other player in the US right now (FBI, CIA, DOJ, Democrats & Republicans)? If so, it would seem that all Trump need do is tell you whatever he likes and you will discount any amount of evidence to the contrary (which doesn't seem like you are utilizing any critical thinking anymore at that point). If Trump decides to eliminate the aforementioned agencies, set himself up as President for life (along with making Russia our closest ally), would you take any issue with that? Do you believe Putin is an altruistic and good person like Trump?

a reply to: Wayfarer

It seems the EU would be opposed to these sanctions and it could cause some issues.

www.vox.com...

“If our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days. ‘America First’ cannot mean that Europe's interests come last,” EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker warned the US on Wednesday.

I would be lying if I claimed to understand how all this works, but wasn't Trump voted in because he would stand up to TPTB. This could be an example of him doing just that.

originally posted by: dothedew
The vote on sanctions against Russia was held back in July of last year, when all of the hype and psychosis was passing around that Russia was responsible for everything from hacking paper election votes, to causing natural disasters.

Since then, it has been shown that all of this nonsense didn't necessarily happen, and was either overly exaggerated or completely made up altogether.

That being the case...... Why would he impose sanctions?

It the most simplest terms, Russia interfered in the election, ergo the US will sanction them to hurt the Russian state as a reprisal for actions the US deems hurtful. To flip the coin if you would be willing to entertain the question: Why would a President accused of being under the thumb of Putin seemingly do something to benefit Putin (and reinforce the narrative that he is in fact under Putin's thumb)?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I am unfortunately less surprised than I would like to be that there has seemingly been no mention of this that I can tell yet, so I'd like to pose the issue and see peoples opinions on the matter that seemingly is one of the few areas both Democrats and Republicans almost unanimously agree on.

Fox News Article

Congress voted overwhelmingly to sanction Russia for their role in meddling in the US election (something that is agreed upon by both sides as occurring - save but for Trump himself); and by a 517-5 margin (from July legislation passed: the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act). Yet earlier this week (and quietly I may add) Trump decided that sanctions were not necessary, and that merely the 'threat' of sanctions were sufficient.

Additionally, the 'shame' list of crooked Russian oligarchs who were deemed to have procured their wealth through illicit or corrupt means was thrown away at the last minute by someone in the Trump administration and replaced by a copy/paste list from Forbes:

Fox News version of the Shame and Name list report, which of course doesn't make any mention of the expert created list being thrown out at the last minute.

The Guardian's version which references throwing out the expert constructed list in lieu of using the Forbes list.

I am certain there is a sizable portion of the ATS base that believes whatever Trump says 111%, but are there conservative or Republican voters that may or may not have voted/supported Trump who are worried that what is seemingly one of the few areas both the Democrats and Republican's can work together/agree on is being thwarted by Trump's word alone? It feels like I'm witness a murder suspect tell the jury that they shouldn't even hold a trial because he pinkie swears nothing happened.

This seems remarkably suspicious that for someone accused of being a Russian toadie to coincidentally 'adjust' a precedent of US policy to the benefit of Putin/Russia. I may dislike Republican doctrine, but I make no allusions that Russian meddling in the US system is of much graver implication that policy differences between D's and R's.

For a conspiracy forum I find it weirdly disconcerting that what is seemingly a occurrence akin to handing a conspiracy up to the public on a silver platter is being ignored on a site who's focus is just that.

Ummm...I totally agree...we should use even more bellicose rhetoric...

Lets all call them nasty names and make fun of the way they talk...after all...it's not like we have ever meddled in the electoral process of others...erm...except for those times when...D'oh...

A person would have to be real...special...to believe otherwise...

Besides...I really think that what the Hilldog and Odogma did to Libya...and then to Syria...just might be construed as...meddling...don't you think...?

So...while we're panties all in a wad over some face book posts...maybe it might behoove us to take a gander at the...
real elephant in the room...

KWIM...?






YouSir

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Russia was meddling in elections for over two decades, yet Obama not only laughed at Russia being a threat, he actively worked to have a reset with them and said after he was elected he would have more room to be flexible with them. I odnt remember one person saying this made Obama a russian stooge.

I know its not a popular opinion now days, particularly with the "anti war" democrats, but I would like to avoid a conflict with russia.

If the US is to sanction them for meddling in the election, why not sanction the democrats that stole the election from Bernie?

And if these sanctions are so crucial as the dems say because of how bad russia is for meddling in the electio, why did the dems pay for dirt on trump that came from the Kremlin?

It seems its ok for the desm to buddy up to russia, but anything short of going to war with russia makes trump a russian plant.

Why do you misrepresent the issue deliberately by only calling out the Democrats desire to sanction Russia? Unless you didn't read what I posted, I thought I made it pretty clear that support for the sanctions was practically Unanimous.

Well yes, you are correct, the war mongering establishment from both parties wants to fight russia.

I am against that.

I bring up democrats because they were supposedly the party of peace, and they didnt want these wars. Not only that, but they are far more vocaal on how evil the russians are, going on and on every day about it, even going so far as to claim many issues americans are concerned with as the work of russian bots. This feverish demonization and agressiveness toward a country is the definition of xenophobic, but as usual they project there bloodlust on to trump and call him that.

Turns out they are no different than the war mongering neocons they claim to despise.

Are you suggesting that Trump's word is more sacrosanct that every other player in the US right now (FBI, CIA, DOJ, Democrats & Republicans)? If so, it would seem that all Trump need do is tell you whatever he likes and you will discount any amount of evidence to the contrary (which doesn't seem like you are utilizing any critical thinking anymore at that point). If Trump decides to eliminate the aforementioned agencies, set himself up as President for life (along with making Russia our closest ally), would you take any issue with that? Do you believe Putin is an altruistic and good person like Trump?

A you must have watched the Jordan peterson cathy newman interview.

You take what I say, then ask if I am saying something completely different than what I said.

I said I am against warmongering and starting a war with russia.

Yes, if all of those you mentioned want a war with russia, I am against that.

But allow me to use your startegy on you.

Are you saying you want a war between the two biggest nuclear powers on the planet? Are you saying you will cheer for this war based on the CIA FBI etc. word? Are you saying you would support them having a coup and taking out President Trump?

You must have been a fan of the iraq war too, because the deep state all said it was good. Are you saying you will believe anything they say without question?

Wow, this is productive isnt it?