Current Events > I'm starting to think that Trump is showing specific favoritism towards Russia.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, it's one thing to just remain neutral towards them, but it seems increasingly more like we just ignore anything bad that they do.
---

Took you this long?
---

Foppe posted...

Took you this long?

Well I mean, before it was just a lot of liberal screeching.

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.
---

Steve Nick posted...

Foppe posted...

Took you this long?

Well I mean, before it was just a lot of liberal screeching.

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.

It was simply just obvious he had a bias towards Russia and you just let identity politics let you think there wasn't.
---

Trump refusing to sanction Russia was "just a lot of liberal screeching?"
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Foppe posted...

Took you this long?

Well I mean, before it was just a lot of liberal screeching.

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.

It was simply just obvious he had a bias towards Russia and you just let identity politics let you think there wasn't.

You mean I waited for actual evidence.
---

Steve Nick posted...

You mean I waited for actual evidence.

Trump refusing to sanction Russia wasn't actual evidence?
---

Steve Nick posted...

Foppe posted...

Took you this long?

Well I mean, before it was just a lot of liberal screeching.

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.

Right, because refusing to implement sanctions that he signed into law, constantly praising Putin, taking Putin's word over the word of our own intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the election, business dealings and finiancial ties to Russia, multiple members of his campaign/administration having undisclosed meetings or connections with Russians and then lying about them, etc. were just "liberal screeching".
---

Steve Nick posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Foppe posted...

Took you this long?

Well I mean, before it was just a lot of liberal screeching.

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.

It was simply just obvious he had a bias towards Russia and you just let identity politics let you think there wasn't.

You mean I waited for actual evidence.

No. You were just playing a partisan hack until it was no longer convenient.
---

Steve Nick posted...

Now he's firing his beloved secretary of state just because he mentioned something vaguely negative about Russia.

Beloved doesn't seem like an accurate description of Trump's relationship with Tillerson. And if opposition to Russia is a fireable offense, Pompeo already has two strikes against him.
---

Antifar posted...

The Russia theory on this kinda falls flat when you realize Pompeo, a CIA guy, is way more hawkish towards Russia than Tillerson, who did business with them all the time in his past job.

---

Antifar posted...

Beloved doesn't seem like an accurate description of Trump's relationship with Tillerson. And if opposition to Russia is a fireable offense, Pompeo already has two strikes against him.

We'll see how long he lasts.
---

He literally just said if it is proven they were behind the recent assassination attempt he would condemn them.
---

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

He literally just said if it is proven they were behind the recent assassination attempt he would condemn them.

Oh come on, we all know no level of "proof" will ever be good enough for him or you supporters. You can't keep setting an unreasonably high bar then get pissy when people mock you over it
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

GuyCarlPeterson posted...

He literally just said if it is proven they were behind the recent assassination attempt he would condemn them.

Oh come on, we all know no level of "proof" will ever be good enough for him or you supporters. You can't keep setting an unreasonably high bar then get pissy when people mock you over it

Having proof of something is an unreasonably high bar. Huh.
---

Trump acting extremely Russian friendly every single time he can is no proof that he is Russian friendly!
---

Why are people bashing you @Steve_Nick for changing your mind, especially when you're now on their (our) side?

Man, I'll never understand the disposition on this board sometimes.
---

Eat More Beef posted...

Why are people bashing you @Steve_Nick for changing your mind, especially when you're now on their (our) side?

Man, I'll never understand the disposition on this board sometimes.

Oh, you just have to learn to ignore certain posters on these boards.

A lot of them only seem to exist to shout hostility and spread toxicity everywhere they go.

Also, to clarify, I don't feel as if I've changed my mind, it's just that there's been so much nonsense in the air from both sides for the past year and a half that it would be stupid to make assumptions. But the new developments seem like a pretty obvious cause & effect of "Say anything negative about Russia, and you're gone". Trump hadn't really shown anything but neutrality towards Russia prior, openly at least.

Seems like he's stepped over the line this time, and is actively prioritizing Russia rather than just making nice with them.
---

I'm not bashing you. I'm just wondering what you thought about Trump refusing to issue sanctions on Russia.
---

CableZL posted...

I'm not bashing you. I'm just wondering what you thought about Trump refusing to issue sanctions on Russia.

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

I personally thought that the reason they wanted to sanction them to begin with was flimsy, and that the rejection of it was justified.

It's like if we're in a class together and everyone is like, "Yo SteveNick, you should punch CableZL". The vote is unanimous, they all want me to punch CableZL but I'm like, "Uhh why? I'm not gonna punch CableZL."

It's starting to look a little more like Trump may have rejected the sanctions for ulterior reasons, as more information comes out, but at the time it looked like he was just making a sensible decision.
---

Steve Nick posted...

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

He doesn't get to say no. The sanctions passed Congress nearly unanimously and were signed by his own hand. It's his constitutional duty to carry those sanctions out.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

He doesn't get to say no. The sanctions passed Congress nearly unanimously and were signed by his own hand. It's his constitutional duty to carry those sanctions out.

What you're saying is empirically false, as shown by the fact that he did say no, and nothing came of it.
---

Steve Nick posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

He doesn't get to say no. The sanctions passed Congress nearly unanimously and were signed by his own hand. It's his constitutional duty to carry those sanctions out.

What you're saying is empirically false, as shown by the fact that he did say no, and nothing came of it.

The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully uphold the duties of his office, and that includes implementing legislation that's passed Congress and been signed into law, regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. Trump and his party are trampling the Constitution because they aren't willing to actually prosecute his infractions, and you're perfectly okay with that?
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

He doesn't get to say no. The sanctions passed Congress nearly unanimously and were signed by his own hand. It's his constitutional duty to carry those sanctions out.

What you're saying is empirically false, as shown by the fact that he did say no, and nothing came of it.

The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully uphold the duties of his office, and that includes implementing legislation that's passed Congress and been signed into law, regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. Trump and his party are trampling the Constitution because they aren't willing to actually prosecute his infractions, and you're perfectly okay with that?

Guess what: the only thing that can force Trump to carry out his duties is Congress, so this argument is purely academic. The president isn't supposed to ignore Congress, but he can if Congress lets him get away it(which this Congress will).

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Guess what: the only thing that can force Trump to carry out his duties is Congress, so this argument is purely academic. The president isn't supposed to ignore Congress, but he can if Congress lets him get away it(which this Congress will).

Yep, just like the one who can punish Kellyane Conway for repeated ethics law violations is Trump, but Trump just allows her to do it.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Some people wanted him to sanction Russia for whatever reason. Trump said no.

He doesn't get to say no. The sanctions passed Congress nearly unanimously and were signed by his own hand. It's his constitutional duty to carry those sanctions out.

What you're saying is empirically false, as shown by the fact that he did say no, and nothing came of it.

The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully uphold the duties of his office, and that includes implementing legislation that's passed Congress and been signed into law, regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. Trump and his party are trampling the Constitution because they aren't willing to actually prosecute his infractions, and you're perfectly okay with that?

Now you're kind of splintering the issue into two here.

I was okay with Trump not wanting to put sanctions on Russia at that point, yes.

But Trump being okay with ignoring the constitution is a separate issue altogether. I don't agree with ignoring the constitution. I think politicians should follow the rules.
---

CableZL posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Guess what: the only thing that can force Trump to carry out his duties is Congress, so this argument is purely academic. The president isn't supposed to ignore Congress, but he can if Congress lets him get away it(which this Congress will).

Yep, just like the one who can punish Kellyane Conway for repeated ethics law violations is Trump, but Trump just allows her to do it.

It turns out that one thing we never knew, is that if you're the President and just choose not to give a fuck, there's not much most people can do to stop you.
---