Russian sanctions approved by Congress halted by white house

Scataphagos said:
How would they do that? Threaten to "not immigrate to America" and suck tit on the American tax payer... not rape our women and children? That would show us who's boss, all right.
More...

Haha! Do not get on the wrong side of the sh!tholes:)
 
Tsing Tao said:
Meddling doesn't mean anything. I'm sure any number of 50 or so countries are "meddling" in our country's politics as we speak, and we're meddling in 50 other countries. And there are 50 other countries meddling with each other. That's called world politics.

But saying the electoral process is in jeopardy because some "bots are confirmed pushing propaganda" is just silly.

If low information voters are convinced by bots of whom they should vote for, then I'd argue the problem is with our population, not "bots".
More...

The legislative doesn't just pass near unanimous resolutions over nothing (as you say meddling is).
 
Here4money said:
The legislative doesn't just pass near unanimous resolutions over nothing (as you say meddling is).
More...

Some examples of past similar circumstances. Obama vetoed a near unanimous bill called "Justice against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" that would allow victims of 9-11 to sue foreign governments. It eventually passed as both Senate and Congress overruled him.

The Annual National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (a bill put forth every year) was vetoed by Bush because Bush didn't want to freeze Iraqi assets in the U.S..

Carter did one as well regarding the VA, but I don't remember the specifics without wasting the time looking it up.

If the "super majority" still wants Russian sanctions, they can overrule Trump. That's the whole point of balance of power.
 
Here4money said:
I realize that's what Putin has been arguing since they're masters of whataboutisms, but no, not if the sanctions are retaliatory in my opinion.
More...

Are you implying that thinking like Putin is a bad thing?

Define "whataboutism".

Are you saying that the potential for one state to meddle with the elections of another state is always offensive, to begin with? Or, are you saying that meddling is always defensive/retaliatory...unless it's Russia?

Btw, you wouldn't have any prejudices against a country based on the predominant color or its skin would you?
 
Good1 said:
Are you implying that thinking like Putin is a bad thing?

Define "whataboutism".

Are you saying that the potential for one state to meddle with the elections of another state is always offensive, to begin with? Or, are you saying that meddling is always defensive/retaliatory...unless it's Russia?

Btw, you wouldn't have any prejudices against a country based on the predominant color or its skin would you?
More...

This whole post is too stupid to reply to, sorry.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Some examples of past similar circumstances. Obama vetoed a near unanimous bill called "Justice against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" that would allow victims of 9-11 to sue foreign governments. It eventually passed as both Senate and Congress overruled him.

The Annual National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (a bill put forth every year) was vetoed by Bush because Bush didn't want to freeze Iraqi assets in the U.S..

Carter did one as well regarding the VA, but I don't remember the specifics without wasting the time looking it up.

If the "super majority" still wants Russian sanctions, they can overrule Trump. That's the whole point of balance of power.
More...

I don't get what your point is, are all these laws nothing burgers that get to be dismissed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top