Benjamin Franklin Posted June 15, 2017 Author Posted June 15, 2017 Senate bill to sanction Russia, can't be modified by Trump without consulting Senate, passed 100-0. Tillerson supported the rationale (punishing Russia for election meddling) but Trump has been tepid to cold in his comments on it. Interesting political moment for Trump.
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 Senate bill to sanction Russia, can't be modified by Trump without consulting Senate, passed 100-0. Tillerson supported the rationale (punishing Russia for election meddling) but Trump has been tepid to cold in his comments on it. Interesting political moment for Trump. I thought it was more like 97-2 or something. The smart move is a "pocket veto"...even though in this case a pocket "veto" makes it law in ten days. Given that he's perceived to be under investigation as a Russian stooge (really, for obstruction of justice), and it passed with such a wide margin as to make his input irrelevant, there is absolutely no upside for him to even acknowledge Russia being sanctioned for something he's accused of being a party to. So the smart move is to let it sit. Since this is Trump, I fully expect him to do something entirely unlike the smart move. It'll probably involve shooting himself in the foot with a mind-bendingly ill-conceived tweet.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 I thought it was more like 97-2 or something. The smart move is a "pocket veto"...even though in this case a pocket "veto" makes it law in ten days. Given that he's perceived to be under investigation as a Russian stooge (really, for obstruction of justice), and it passed with such a wide margin as to make his input irrelevant, there is absolutely no upside for him to even acknowledge Russia being sanctioned for something he's accused of being a party to. So the smart move is to let it sit. Since this is Trump, I fully expect him to do something entirely unlike the smart move. It'll probably involve shooting himself in the foot with a mind-bendingly ill-conceived tweet. The cocknockers at abc where I read the story, which was still open on my screen, changed it from 100-0 to the proper 98-2. What the $&@@? Same sentiment applies.
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 The cocknockers at abc where I read the story, which was still open on my screen, changed it from 100-0 to the proper 98-2. What the $&@@? Same sentiment applies. And they're still wrong...it's 97-2. Chris Van Hollen didn't vote, for whatever reason. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00144 Reporting this day and age is quite simply ****. This is being reported by multiple sources as a 100-0 vote, or 98-2 vote, or 97-2 vote repudiating some imaginary Trump policy to ease sanctions on Russia when he just reconfirmed them, and confirming our commitment to Article 5 of the NATO agreement in defiance of Trump's abrogation of it, when Trump just confirmed our commitment himself not two days ago. NBC, CNN, and CBS are all reporting the same variation on that nonsense. But on another note...Trump is actually forcing Congress to do its job with respect to checks and balances, no matter how clumsily. Told y'all so.
Doc Brown Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 I thought it was more like 97-2 or something. The smart move is a "pocket veto"...even though in this case a pocket "veto" makes it law in ten days. Given that he's perceived to be under investigation as a Russian stooge (really, for obstruction of justice), and it passed with such a wide margin as to make his input irrelevant, there is absolutely no upside for him to even acknowledge Russia being sanctioned for something he's accused of being a party to. So the smart move is to let it sit. Since this is Trump, I fully expect him to do something entirely unlike the smart move. It'll probably involve shooting himself in the foot with a mind-bendingly ill-conceived tweet. Yeah. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted against it. It's not a foregone conclusion that the House will also pass this bill in its current form and their may be some ping pong played between the two houses about the specifics of it before it gets to the presidents desk. Like you. I have no clue what this president will do.
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Yeah. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted against it. It's not a foregone conclusion that the House will also pass this bill in its current form and their may be some ping pong played between the two houses about the specifics of it before it gets to the presidents desk. Like you. I have no clue what this president will do. I know exactly what he'll do: he'll tweet with all the eloquence his 75-word vocabulary can muster, then mug for the cameras with that ****-eating Mussolini grin of his.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 And they're still wrong...it's 97-2. Chris Van Hollen didn't vote, for whatever reason. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00144 Reporting this day and age is quite simply ****. This is being reported by multiple sources as a 100-0 vote, or 98-2 vote, or 97-2 vote repudiating some imaginary Trump policy to ease sanctions on Russia when he just reconfirmed them, and confirming our commitment to Article 5 of the NATO agreement in defiance of Trump's abrogation of it, when Trump just confirmed our commitment himself not two days ago. NBC, CNN, and CBS are all reporting the same variation on that nonsense. But on another note...Trump is actually forcing Congress to do its job with respect to checks and balances, no matter how clumsily. Told y'all so. Agreed on reporting. Trump's commitment...is an ever-shifting wind. I put no stock in that.
row_33 Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Agreed on reporting. Trump's commitment...is an ever-shifting wind. I put no stock in that. Everyone knows that. LIbs running around screaming this is not adding anything to the conversation. That's what makes this so hilarious.
B-Man Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) Perhaps Flynn has the goods on Trump and maybe Trump was colluding with the Russians and is now covering his tracks. I’m prepared to believe both of these things–just as soon as there’s some real evidence for them. In the meantime, the facts we know suggest that Trump was obsessed with getting two things out there: 1) that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, when so far everyone who might have access to such evidence says they haven’t seen any; 2) that the FBI wasn’t investigating him, when Comey repeatedly told him the FBI wasn’t investigating him. In other words, it appears so far that Trump is guilty of ham-handedly and inappropriately trying to make public things that were - true. Chicken/Egg: What Came First, the Crime or the Investigation?.......... Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448695/chicken-egg-what-came-first-crime-or-investigation Edited June 16, 2017 by B-Man
reddogblitz Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Yeah. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted against it. Whose side is Bernie on, ours or the Rooskies? He should be investigated.
GG Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Since this is Trump, I fully expect him to do something entirely unlike the smart move. It'll probably involve shooting himself in the foot with a mind-bendingly ill-conceived tweet. Right on cue. Perfect time to pick on Rosenstein
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Whose side is Bernie on, ours or the Rooskies? He should be investigated. Obama's. He voted no to avoid risking the Iran nuclear deal. Right on cue. Perfect time to pick on Rosenstein I'm starting to get the feeling I'm watching Nixon...if Nixon were six years old.
Doc Brown Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 I know exactly what he'll do: he'll tweet with all the eloquence his 75-word vocabulary can muster, then mug for the cameras with that ****-eating Mussolini grin of his. LOL. One thing about Trump is he may not be the greatest orator of our time but he sure knows how to put on a good show to manipulate his base.
4merper4mer Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 Whose side is Bernie on, ours or the Rooskies? He should be investigated. Well he is a commie and basically admits it.
B-Man Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 WHAT RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? The Democrats are making fools of themselves with their investigation of nothing, so perhaps the best thing we can do is laugh at them. Michael Ramirez ridicules their questioning of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There must be something about Russia lurking in his background somewhere! Click to enlarge:
K-9 Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 Their investigation? It's the democrats that are in charge of this? Who knew? McConnell gave his blessing after a bi-partisan group of senators came to the conclusion to investigate the matter based on intelligence reports. This was back in January. How quickly people forget facts in the quest to score points with their readership.
4merper4mer Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Their investigation? It's the democrats that are in charge of this? Who knew? McConnell gave his blessing after a bi-partisan group of senators came to the conclusion to investigate the matter based on intelligence reports. This was back in January. How quickly people forget facts in the quest to score points with their readership. Oh for Pete's sake stop it.
4merper4mer Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Drudge headline say "Russia vows to shoot down all flying objects over Syria". Most re taking this as a response to the US shooting down a Syrian fighter but we know Trump is in Russia's pocket so that can't be it. Me, I'm go to stay out of the politics of this because I think it CLEARLY belongs in the UFO thread.
B-Man Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Drudge headline say "Russia vows to shoot down all flying objects over Syria". Most re taking this as a response to the US shooting down a Syrian fighter but we know Trump is in Russia's pocket so that can't be it. Me, I'm go to stay out of the politics of this because I think it CLEARLY belongs in the UFO thread. Can't be............... Coincidence ?...............I think not.
Recommended Posts