White House Signals Acceptance of Russia Sanctions Bill

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Sanctions didn't work against Cuba either, FOR DECADES, but the Republicans and Cons lost their minds when Obama eased them. And Russia is a MUCH bigger threat to us than Cuba is.

I wonder what the difference is now?

" We got a look like we are doing something, nobody cares if it will work".

 

[Mac77]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

It is true, there are a good number of people who are very successful without having completed or even attended higher education institutions, but it is also true that by far those who lack education remain ignorant partisan hacks of every political affiliations.

Many people with education and degrees are ignorant partisan hacks too

Being a one-trick pony IT specialist or a some other speciality does not make someone well informed about any other subject including politics

 

[Rogue Valley]

Doesn't say anything good at all about Trump when a majority GOP Congress considers it a necessity to collectively [bipartisan] "Trump-proof" US sanctions on Moscow.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

What a moronic post. If you polled the most educated, most successful, most well informed people in the country you would find the majority of them regard the NYT as the
best newspaper there is.

You might also find they don't support Trump either. Trump supporters rarely fall in to that category.

 

[JackA]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Read a lot of different things, and make sure that a fair share of the content is foreign. Always read skeptically and always read looking for what is not being said.

My dailys:
CNN
The Week
Politico
Breitbart
WP
DW
BBC
Yahoo news
DP

A few times a week:
Vox
NYT
Der Spiegel
New Republic
Slate
Fox news
The Hill
Seattle PI
Sputnik

Plus most issues of the Atlantic paper copy, for years Vanity fair but I have been off that just lately, my wifes celeb mags most weeks, and I read books though not as many as I would like.

The mix constantly changes, for instance VOX and slate were once daily but their bias plus lack of originality have made them more boring, Sputnik and Breitbart were not daily's till recently, as with the further decline of the so-called journalists since Trump came around meant that I needed to cast a wider net.

It's good to know "so-called journalists" are in decline. An impressive list for length, but curious: Breitbart, Daily Word and Fox News but not WSJ or among the periodical mentions: National Review, Economist, First Things, Weekly Standard or Commentary.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Agreed, "the best America can manage", but also very good. What is little appreciated, especially among political junkies, is that journalism in the United States has seldom if ever been better.
This refers mainly to press journalism, the kind (my guess is) most members here hardly read. The networks can't help but lag behind.

I am 55, this is the worst journalism has been during my time watching.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

It's good to know "so-called journalists" are in decline. An impressive list for length, but curious: Breitbart, Daily Word and Fox News but not WSJ or among the periodical mentions: National Review, Economist, First Things, Weekly Standard or Commentary.

DW is German DW, I do look at the Economist but only a few times a month, I read the paper copy maybe once a year. My list works for me, I don't get surprised often, if I start to I will change the list. A lot of times my looks are fast, a skim to see what they at talking about, sometimes it is something I want to learn more about so I linger, sometime I take a look at something to make sure that the bias has not changed, or to make sure that the authors dont know more than I do, or dont contradict something I just heard somewhere else or think that I know.

Staying educated as this civilization dies is more art than science, plus we Zennists run heavy on intuition. So does Trump incidentally.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

This is typical unprofessional liberal journalism that dwels on process but spends little time on substance

Will he or wont he the breathlees NYT asks?

Will he or wont he what?

Whats in the sanctions?

Who knows and who cares?

Certainly not the people who get their news from the New York Times

Are you blaming the NYT for Republicans defying Trump? Is that the gist of this post?

 

[Mac77]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Are you blaming the NYT for Republicans defying Trump? Is that the gist of this post?

I'm blaming the Times for bad journalism

They hire clueless little lib snowflakes that are too lazy to learn the details of the stories they report

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

I'm blaming the Times for bad journalism

They hire clueless little lib snowflakes that are too lazy to learn the details of the stories they report

Which detail did they miss?

 

[randel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront "The White House indicated on Sunday that President Trump would accept new legislation curtailing his authority to lift sanctions on Russia on his own, a striking turnaround after a broad revolt by lawmakers of both parties who distrusted his friendly approach to Moscow and sought to tie his hands."

Democrats and Republicans working together to curtail Trump. I like the sound of that.

i would say that trump didnt have much choice ......all the heat he has now over russia, he would just be pouring gasoline on the fire to try and resist

 

[Mac77]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Which detail did they miss?

How about what the sanctions are that everyone is arguing over?

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

How about what the sanctions are that everyone is arguing over?

The sanctions Obama put in place. The Republicans want to limit Trump's right to lift those sanctions. Isn't that what the story is about? Did I get it wrong?

 

[Lord of Planar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront "The White House indicated on Sunday that President Trump would accept new legislation curtailing his authority to lift sanctions on Russia on his own, a striking turnaround after a broad revolt by lawmakers of both parties who distrusted his friendly approach to Moscow and sought to tie his hands."

Democrats and Republicans working together to curtail Trump. I like the sound of that.

LOL...

I just read part of the appropriate senate pages:

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/06/13/CREC-2017-06-13-pt1-PgS3428.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/06/13/CREC-2017-06-13-pt1-PgS3440.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/06/14/CREC-2017-06-14-pt1-PgS3462-3.pdf

 

[Mac77]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

The sanctions Obama put in place. The Republicans want to limit Trump's right to lift those sanctions. Isn't that what the story is about? Did I get it wrong?

You probably gave a better answer than the liberal snowfakes at the NYT could have done.

But the article should have given details about what the sanctions are

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

The sanctions Obama put in place. The Republicans want to limit Trump's right to lift those sanctions. Isn't that what the story is about? Did I get it wrong?

It appears that is the story. They attached it to an Iran sanctions bill.

Aren't those sanction illegal by our trade agreements?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

Yep, could be a preemptive strike. They know Trump and his people has been in bed with Russia and the Mueller hammer is going to fall on Trump's head, so the Republicans in Congress figure they better start to pull away from Trump. Then when the **** hits the fan they can say to their minions 'we got tough on him too'.

They know more than they're willing to tell us it seems.

Their actions speak louder than their word, imho.

The GOP congress don't trust Trumpco re Russia.

They probably have a good reason for turning on the ostensible leader of their party.
Not the kind of thing you just do on a whim. imho anyway.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

It appears that is the story. They attached it to an Iran sanctions bill.

Aren't those sanction illegal by our trade agreements?

I doubt it. It would be pretty ridiculous if they were.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

I doubt it. It would be pretty ridiculous if they were.

I never really did any verifying, but I have read more than once, that the sanctions violate our trade agreements.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

They know more than they're willing to tell us it seems.

They probably have a good reason for turning on the ostensible leader of their party.
Not the kind of thing you just do on a whim. imho anyway.

I think you are 100% right.

 

[JackA]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

DW is German DW, I do look at the Economist but only a few times a month, I read the paper copy maybe once a year. My list works for me, I don't get surprised often, if I start to I will change the list. A lot of times my looks are fast, a skim to see what they at talking about, sometimes it is something I want to learn more about so I linger, sometime I take a look at something to make sure that the bias has not changed, or to make sure that the authors dont know more than I do, or dont contradict something I just heard somewhere else or think that I know.

Staying educated as this civilization dies is more art than science, plus we Zennists run heavy on intuition. So does Trump incidentally.

And on self-contemplation he runs even heavier.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

I never really did any verifying, but I have read more than once, that the sanctions violate our trade agreements.

Welp. If your government made agreements with other countries that preclude Presidential sanctions against those countries, I'd say you have a problem. Why do you think any government would include that in a trade agreement?

edit- Wait a minute. I just got it. You're saying the sanctions are illegal because it was Obama who imposed them.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Congress to impose sanctions on Trump's Boss

The long running sanctions have not worked to change Russian behavior, sanctions often dont work, and there is a pretty good argument that sanctions have been helping Putin and helping to drive Russia further towards Team China but sure let's do more of them in the interest of doing something.

Putin concentrated on electing Trump to get the sanctions removed. Now thanks to Congress, that has failed he can either deal with them or make concessions to get them eased. Yet another reason we need to find ways to thwart any further meddling by the Russians. He needs to know he cannot cheat away penalties for behaviors that violate international law. But make no mistake about it, the sanctions are painful to him and his cabal of oligarchs. Hitting an oligarchy in the pocketbook is the way to attack their weakness. China has never and will never trust Russia any more than we do. Except Trump of course. Trump is naturally attracted to Putin with him being the richest man in the world and all. The fact that Putin stole all his money is not a deal breaker for Trump either.

 

[iguanaman]

Honestly, "signals" like this from the White House are essentially meaningless to me. This administration has flip flopped suddenly, and for no discernible reason, so often that i no longer have confidence in their ability to follow-through.

He can "accept" the bill and then choose to veto it. Words no longer have their own meanings, instead, they're changed to suit the presidents agenda.

Actually the real reason for the "acceptance" is that his veto won't fly. It will be overturned and he certainly doesn't want those optics.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Actually the real reason for the "acceptance" is that his veto won't fly. It will be overturned and he certainly doesn't want those optics.

Good point, but 'optics' won't matter with his base. He can shoot someone on 5th Av., etc... And quite honestly I don't think Trump cares about optics anymore, with anyone.