Trump fails to impose Russian sanctions

[happyhoix]

 

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/trump-administration-holds-off-on-new-russia-sanctions-despite-law-idUSKBN1FI2V7

Despite Congress approving the sanctions last summer, Trump has decided we don't really need to use them, because the 'threat' of them out there is good enough.

At the same time, the director of the CIA fears more Russian interference in the 2018 elections, including tampering with voter lists, something they tried to do last time.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-director-expects-russia-will-try-to-target-us-mid-term-elections/ar-BBIs9iz

Perhaps Trump and the GOP are willing to ignore the Russian interference because they think Putin is their friend and will help their side win elections.   Hopefully they are not so naïve as to think Putin has friends.

[swamp]

I'm shocked! 

[Tennesseer]

"Russia should not interfere in other countries' elections"  raged trump.  "We won't impose the sanctions if you help us win the 2018 elections” trump added sotto voce.

[Gardening Grandma]

The total count was 517 for sanctions 5 against

Putin’s bitch refuses to implement.  

[djAdvocate]

payback

[Tennesseer]

[thyme4change]

We need to weaken the presidency. The amount of congressional power that has been usurped by the presidency over the past 20 years is unacceptable.

[billisonboard]

Jan 30, 2018 13:37:40 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

We need to weaken the presidency. The amount of congressional power that has been usurped by the presidency over the past 20 years is unacceptable.

I only disagree with your time frame. It has been longer than 20 years that it has been happening.

Imperial Presidency is a term used to describe the modern presidency of the United States which became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns: that the U.S. presidency was uncontrollable and that it had exceeded the constitutional limits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency

Congress needs to step up.

[thyme4change]

Jan 30, 2018 16:24:54 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 30, 2018 13:37:40 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

We need to weaken the presidency. The amount of congressional power that has been usurped by the presidency over the past 20 years is unacceptable.

I only disagree with your time frame. It has been longer than 20 years that it has been happening.

Imperial Presidency is a term used to describe the modern presidency of the United States which became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns: that the U.S. presidency was uncontrollable and that it had exceeded the constitutional limits. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency

Congress needs to step up.

You are probably correct about the time frame. I can only speak intelligently for maybe 25 years of history - tops, so I didn't claim anything further than that.

😀

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The measure, known as the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” or CAATSA, required the administration to list “oligarchs” close to President Vladimir Putin’s government and issue a report detailing possible consequences of penalizing Russia’s sovereign debt.

www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/trump-russia-sanctions/

[Tennesseer]

Jan 30, 2018 23:49:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The measure, known as the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” or CAATSA, required the administration to list “oligarchs” close to President Vladimir Putin’s government and issue a report detailing possible consequences of penalizing Russia’s sovereign debt.

www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/trump-russia-sanctions/

The title of your linked article:

US names Russian oligarchs in 'Putin list' but imposes no new sanctions

[happyhoix]

Yep. Made a list of Russian oligarchs, but there are no consequences for anyone doing business with them.

All the best people make deals with Russian oligarchs. Or at least all the best Trump administration people.

 

[dezii]

Jan 30, 2018 13:37:40 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

We need to weaken the presidency. The amount of congressional power that has been usurped by the presidency over the past 20 years is unacceptable.

that is Congress'   fault...been that way for many terms...both Republican and Democrat...believe started with Roosevelt...possible earlier but definitely escalated after WW2 imho.. ...

Possible because of the cold war...also a hold over from WW2 when all were on board to win the war...felt needed stronger President...

Also as Congress became less able to compromise, cross the aisle...the need for a stronger Executive probably was accepted by the Congress...actually help them keep their seats..blame for failure or unpopular decision on the President..constituents found harder to blame their representatives...seats are safe.

[OldCoyote]

www.aol.com/article/news/2018/03/15/us-hits-russians-with-sanctions-for-election-meddling-cyber-attacks/23386643/

OK, I am sure that you will find something wrong with this,  cause Trump did it.

Something like he is destroying relations with Russia!!

[Virgil Showlion]

Also, regarding the "Pres. Putin helped Pres. Trump win the election" theory:

observer.com/2017/02/stanford-study-fake-news-hillary-clinton-election-loss/

[billisonboard]

Here is the headline: Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton .  So what did the study actually conclude? Following the link provided by the OP article to the actual study:

Conclusion
In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake
news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide
an assessment of this claim one way or another.

My conclusion is that the opinion piece in the OP is itself fake news.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 15, 2018 10:40:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is the headline: Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton .  So what did the study actually conclude? Following the link provided by the OP article to the actual study:

Conclusion
In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake
news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide
an assessment of this claim one way or another.

My conclusion is that the opinion piece in the OP is itself fake news.

The study provides evidence supporting the conclusion that fake news supported Ms. Clinton's campaign more than than it supported Pres. Trump's.

Hence let me put it this way: if even Stanford researchers can't tell conclusively but lean against Russian involvement benefiting Pres. Trump, on what basis does Pres. Trump owe Pres. Putin a favour?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 15, 2018 10:13:09 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

www.aol.com/article/news/2018/03/15/us-hits-russians-with-sanctions-for-election-meddling-cyber-attacks/23386643/

OK, I am sure that you will find something wrong with this,  cause Trump did it.

Something like he is destroying relations with Russia!!

What took trump so long?  trump signed into law the Russian sanctions August 2, 2017.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 15, 2018 10:48:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 15, 2018 10:40:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is the headline: Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton .  So what did the study actually conclude? Following the link provided by the OP article to the actual study:

Conclusion
In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake
news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide
an assessment of this claim one way or another.

My conclusion is that the opinion piece in the OP is itself fake news.

The study provides evidence supporting the conclusion that fake news supported Ms. Clinton's campaign more than than it supported Pres. Trump's.

Hence let me put it this way: if even Stanford researchers can't tell conclusively but lean against Russian involvement benefiting Pres. Trump, on what basis does Pres. Trump owe Pres. Putin a favour?

Your link states the study was done in January 2017. Has no new information appeared since then?

[billisonboard]

Mar 15, 2018 10:48:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 15, 2018 10:40:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is the headline: Stanford Study Finds Fake News Didn’t Tip Election Against Clinton .  So what did the study actually conclude? Following the link provided by the OP article to the actual study:

Conclusion
In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake
news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide
an assessment of this claim one way or another.

My conclusion is that the opinion piece in the OP is itself fake news.

The study provides evidence supporting the conclusion that fake news supported Ms. Clinton's campaign more than than it supported Pres. Trump's.

Hence let me put it this way: if even Stanford researchers can't tell conclusively but lean against Russian involvement benefiting Pres. Trump, on what basis does Pres. Trump owe Pres. Putin a favour?

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is significantly different than "... can't tell conclusively but lean against ....".  An assessment of effect was outside the scope of the study. 

[djAdvocate]

as i have said before, i would rather wait for Mueller to end his case.  i think it will become quite clear at that time what actually happened, and who is to blame.

as to the conclusion of the Stanford study: there is no way to measure it, as there is no baseline.  therefore, i think it is impossible to CONCLUDE that "fake news" did NOT cause the election to go the way it did.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 15, 2018 11:01:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 15, 2018 10:48:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The study provides evidence supporting the conclusion that fake news supported Ms. Clinton's campaign more than than it supported Pres. Trump's.

Hence let me put it this way: if even Stanford researchers can't tell conclusively but lean against Russian involvement benefiting Pres. Trump, on what basis does Pres. Trump owe Pres. Putin a favour?

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is significantly different than "... can't tell conclusively but lean against ....".  An assessment of effect was outside the scope of the study. 

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is academic doublespeak for "We have neither the funding nor sufficient love of death threats to tie our observation (that fake news benefiting Ms. Clinton was more widely believed) to the rather obvious conclusion that if the misinformation had any effect at all, it was to her benefit."

This is all semantics anyway. My point is that Pres. Trump owes Pres. Putin nothing for the Russian psyop (which started long before Pres. Trump declared his candidacy and lasted until well after he was elected, I should add). There are no indications the psyop was of any benefit at all to his campaign.

[billisonboard]

Mar 16, 2018 4:44:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... My point is ...

Hold on to that. And please let us know if you find any more opinion pieces on the Internet making the same point so I can give you the opportunity to explain away their underlying issues.

[happyhoix]

Mar 16, 2018 4:44:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 15, 2018 11:01:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is significantly different than "... can't tell conclusively but lean against ....".  An assessment of effect was outside the scope of the study. 

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is academic doublespeak for "We have neither the funding nor sufficient love of death threats to tie our observation (that fake news benefiting Ms. Clinton was more widely believed) to the rather obvious conclusion that if the misinformation had any effect at all, it was to her benefit."

This is all semantics anyway. My point is that Pres. Trump owes Pres. Putin nothing for the Russian psyop (which started long before Pres. Trump declared his candidacy and lasted until well after he was elected, I should add). There are no indications the psyop was of any benefit at all to his campaign.

There's no evidence because there is no meaningful way to assess that. You can't go back in time and isolate a group of voters into a social media free vacuum and compare their voting numbers to an identical group of voters let loose into the morass of social media.

The fact is, Putin TRIED to sway our elections, just like he did to other western countries, with the goal of causing infighting among the voters. He did some pro-Clinton messages, but found that Anti-Clinton, Pro-Trump messages got the most clicks. Other things getting a lot of views were anti-immigrant postings, anti-black lives matter posts, and pro-black lives matter posts.

Putin's gang of geeks realized the anti-Clinton stuff got more traction and so went with that. I have no doubt, in the next election, if fake shit about the GOP candidate gets more clicks, that's what Putin's geeks will produce.

It's pointless to argue the fake social media posts had an impact or did not have an impact - we can't know that - but it is very important to focus on the fact that Putin spent a lot of money in the hopes that they WOULD have an impact. To me, that's an act of war, and Trump hasn't responded appropriately to the threat.  

[thyme4change]

I don't know if he tried to sway the election, but he does have the goal to destroy democracy by making us all doubt the system. And it worked. On both sides, people believe the other candidate got screwed by information put out by Russia.

[Deleted]

From yesterday's subpoena into the Trump Org, it looks like they are looking for the link. Trump did a lot of asking about Putin when trying to build his hotel and having his perverted man contest there. The financial link is coming.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 16, 2018 9:08:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 16, 2018 4:44:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"We do not provide an assessment ..." is academic doublespeak for "We have neither the funding nor sufficient love of death threats to tie our observation (that fake news benefiting Ms. Clinton was more widely believed) to the rather obvious conclusion that if the misinformation had any effect at all, it was to her benefit."

This is all semantics anyway. My point is that Pres. Trump owes Pres. Putin nothing for the Russian psyop (which started long before Pres. Trump declared his candidacy and lasted until well after he was elected, I should add). There are no indications the psyop was of any benefit at all to his campaign.

There's no evidence because there is no meaningful way to assess that. You can't go back in time and isolate a group of voters into a social media free vacuum and compare their voting numbers to an identical group of voters let loose into the morass of social media.

The fact is, Putin TRIED to sway our elections, just like he did to other western countries, with the goal of causing infighting among the voters. He did some pro-Clinton messages, but found that Anti-Clinton, Pro-Trump messages got the most clicks. Other things getting a lot of views were anti-immigrant postings, anti-black lives matter posts, and pro-black lives matter posts.

Putin's gang of geeks realized the anti-Clinton stuff got more traction and so went with that. I have no doubt, in the next election, if fake shit about the GOP candidate gets more clicks, that's what Putin's geeks will produce.

It's pointless to argue the fake social media posts had an impact or did not have an impact - we can't know that - but it is very important to focus on the fact that Putin spent a lot of money in the hopes that they WOULD have an impact. To me, that's an act of war, and Trump hasn't responded appropriately to the threat. 

Thyme hit the nail on the head: the evidence suggests that the psyop was intended to divide and destabilize, not to sway the election.

Given how often the US does the same thing (and far worse) to other countries via the CIA, etc., and has for decades, I find it really hard to shake my fist at Pres. Putin, but the facts indeed remain that i) fomenting unrest in a foreign nation and meddling in its politics (*cough* Soros *cough*) is the act of an enemy, and ii) two wrongs don't make a right; the average American shouldn't have to pay for the secret sins of the American government.

As for there being no way to determine to what degree the fake news swayed the election: I agree. Which is precisely why the theory about Pres. Trump "owing" something to Pres. Putin on that basis doesn't tread water.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 16, 2018 11:06:18 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

From yesterday's subpoena into the Trump Org, it looks like they are looking for the link. Trump did a lot of asking about Putin when trying to build his hotel and having his perverted man contest there. The financial link is coming.

Good luck with that.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 16, 2018 8:58:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 16, 2018 4:44:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... My point is ...

Hold on to that. And please let us know if you find any more opinion pieces on the Internet making the same point so I can give you the opportunity to explain away their underlying issues.

That's a lot of words for "Yeah, I guess Trump doesn't owe him anything."

[Deleted]

CNN has been reporting today that the Russians also hacked our electrical grid and nukes.