• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Russia Throws Out 60 Diplomats, Trump Has Nothing To Say

Recommended Posts

Too scared to criticize Putin. What Putin holds over his head has to be huge.

 

"Donald Trump remains incapable of criticizing Russia, even after the Kremlin Thursday announced the expulsion of 60 U.S. diplomats.

The U.S. officials were among 150 Western diplomats thrown out by Moscow after 25 countries joined the U.K. in expelling Russian officials over the chemical attack on a former Russian double agent living in the Britain.

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, added that the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg would be shuttered.

 

The White House released a statement Thursday that said: “Russia’s response was not unanticipated and the United States will deal with it.” Yet Trump has remained silent on the issue, not mentioning the expulsions during his Thursday speech in Ohio or since via Twitter."

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ykz4/trump-nothing-to-say-russia-60-us-diplomats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

It's the pee pee tape!!!!

I think it's all the Russian money propping up the Trump Empire, exposed, his house of cards crumbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire consulate structure is so last century.

Spy v. Spy has moved on, and the rest are political spoils. The CIA officially runs the State Dept. Probably has for awhile. End the charade.

Youngsters: study Simplified Chinese or Russian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you wonder why people make memes over the Trump-Putin relationship.

Russia State TV: WH source quietly tells Russians that "Number of Russian Diplomats NOT Being Cut"

#Russia's state TV reports that an unnamed high-level White House source quietly told the Russians that the number of Russian diplomats in the U.S. is not being cut (they can send 60 other diplomats to replace the ones being expelled). They quote the source: "The doors are open."



 
 

#Russia's state TV reports that an unnamed high-level White House source quietly told the Russians that the number of Russian diplomats in the U.S. is not being cut (they can send 60 other diplomats to replace the ones being expelled). They quote the source: "The doors are open."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

The entire consulate structure is so last century.

Spy v. Spy has moved on, and the rest are political spoils. The CIA officially runs the State Dept. Probably has for awhile. End the charade.

Youngsters: study Simplified Chinese or AND Russian.

 

FIFYM8!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bone Spurs never has anything to say, but he usually says it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Too scared to criticize Putin. What Putin holds over his head has to be huge.

 

"Donald Trump remains incapable of criticizing Russia, even after the Kremlin Thursday announced the expulsion of 60 U.S. diplomats.

The U.S. officials were among 150 Western diplomats thrown out by Moscow after 25 countries joined the U.K. in expelling Russian officials over the chemical attack on a former Russian double agent living in the Britain.

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, added that the U.S. consulate in St. Petersburg would be shuttered.

 

The White House released a statement Thursday that said: “Russia’s response was not unanticipated and the United States will deal with it.” Yet Trump has remained silent on the issue, not mentioning the expulsions during his Thursday speech in Ohio or since via Twitter."

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3ykz4/trump-nothing-to-say-russia-60-us-diplomats

Are you for real?

The US threw out 60 "diplomats" four days ago andthe Seattle consulate closed. 

300 Russian "Mercenaries" were killed in Syria. 

The Obama sanctions were continued and further sanctions put in place since the London assassination. 

We are selling arms to the Ukraine and Poland against the wishes of the Russians.

Where are you getting this soft on Russia bullshit?  Clearly you consider words more significant than deeds.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian sanctions passed by 97% of Congress. Not implemented by the President himself. It's stuff like that which proves Trump is soft on Russia.

But hey, we understand - you have to rune defence for the Republicans come hell or high water. I expect you'll suddenly notice all of the obvious stuff about the same time the GOP disowns Trump. Until then, you're willing to sacrifice all integrity, character, and credibility on the altar of party loyalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was not unanticipated?  What person with a 5th grade education would say/write that?  Hillary, your team is stupid.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Russian sanctions passed by 97% of Congress. Not implemented by the President himself. It's stuff like that which proves Trump is soft on Russia.

But hey, we understand - you have to rune defence for the Republicans come hell or high water. I expect you'll suddenly notice all of the obvious stuff about the same time the GOP disowns Trump. Until then, you're willing to sacrifice all integrity, character, and credibility on the altar of party loyalty.

97% of congress?  You don't think any republicans were involved?

Where do you have ANY evidence that Trump is soft on Russia?

Do you have a tape of him saying he could be more flexible after the election?

Hmmm, lets see.  The election was in November, there were rumors of Russian influence prior to that.  Obama denies it.  Obama calls for sanction in January so that he doesn't have to actually do anything but dumps it on Trump.  You suckers are biting on that fishhook.  Hell, even the WaPo reported on the timeline last year.

Late July 2016

Late July: The U.S. government makes a concerted effort to investigate Russia meddling in the election. As former CIA director John Brennan recalled to Congress in June 2017: "When it became clear to me last summer that Russia was engaged in a very aggressive and wide-ranging effort to interfere in one of the key pillars of our democracy, we pulled together experts from CIA, NSA and FBI in late July to focus on the issue, drawing in multiple perspectives and subject matter experts with broad expertise to assess Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."

Early August 2016

Early August: The Washington Post reports that Obama received an "eyes only" envelope by courier from the CIA that "detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race" and to help Trump win. "An intelligence bombshell," The Post called it.

January prior to Inauguration

Jan. 6: In what The Washington Post calls a "remarkably blunt assessment," the intelligence agencies release a declassified report saying that Putin ordered the hacking and elevation of fake news in the United States to help Trump win. It determines: Russia “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” and repeatedly sought to artificially boost his election chances.

ALL OF THIS HAPPENED ON OBAMA'S WATCH WITH HIS FULL KNOWLEDGE.  HE DID NOTHING UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE FOR HIM TO DO ANYTHING.

Who was soft on Russia?

OBTW, if there was any actual collusion, all that investigation would surely have shown something greater than the evidence in the subpoenas to date.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be Friday night.... Almost a full moon? The loonies are in full swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

97% of congress?  You don't think any republicans were involved?

Where do you have ANY evidence that Trump is soft on Russia?

Do you have a tape of him saying he could be more flexible after the election?

Hmmm, lets see.  The election was in November, there were rumors of Russian influence prior to that.  Obama denies it.  Obama calls for sanction in January so that he doesn't have to actually do anything but dumps it on Trump.  You suckers are biting on that fishhook.  Hell, even the WaPo reported on the timeline last year.

Late July 2016

Late July: The U.S. government makes a concerted effort to investigate Russia meddling in the election. As former CIA director John Brennan recalled to Congress in June 2017: "When it became clear to me last summer that Russia was engaged in a very aggressive and wide-ranging effort to interfere in one of the key pillars of our democracy, we pulled together experts from CIA, NSA and FBI in late July to focus on the issue, drawing in multiple perspectives and subject matter experts with broad expertise to assess Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election."

Early August 2016

Early August: The Washington Post reports that Obama received an "eyes only" envelope by courier from the CIA that "detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race" and to help Trump win. "An intelligence bombshell," The Post called it.

January prior to Inauguration

Jan. 6: In what The Washington Post calls a "remarkably blunt assessment," the intelligence agencies release a declassified report saying that Putin ordered the hacking and elevation of fake news in the United States to help Trump win. It determines: Russia “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” and repeatedly sought to artificially boost his election chances.

ALL OF THIS HAPPENED ON OBAMA'S WATCH WITH HIS FULL KNOWLEDGE.  HE DID NOTHING UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE FOR HIM TO DO ANYTHING.

Who was soft on Russia?

 

When was the last time congress sent a bill to the WH with a 99% approval vote that didn't get signed.  DO YOUR FUCKING HOMEWORK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Must be Friday night.... Almost a full moon? The loonies are in full swing.

No shit, we have a clear sky and it is gorgeous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that Saorsa and Hillary are doing it.  I don't want to do a full out poll, but I'm thinking Hillary is the hen and not the rooster.  Can't imagine the bite marks in that pillow, but on the plus side, it's not like Saorsa has anything resembling a penis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

97% of congress?  You don't think any republicans were involved?

Yes, and they're being very quiet about it. They, like you, are incapable of sacking up to criticise members of the same team.

 

48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Where do you have ANY evidence that Trump is soft on Russia?

See above. 97% of Congress passed sanctions on Russia. Trump refused to implement them. That is soft on Russia.

 

48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Snip flagrant "whataboutism" on Obama

Some of us can discuss Trump without bringing up Obama. Just like some of us could discuss Obama without bringing up Bush. You seemed to take issue with them. Preacher, heal thyself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, and they're being very quiet about it. They, like you, are incapable of sacking up to criticise members of the same team.

 

See above. 97% of Congress passed sanctions on Russia. Trump refused to implement them. That is soft on Russia.

 

Some of us can discuss Trump without bringing up Obama. Just like some of us could discuss Obama without bringing up Bush. You seemed to take issue with them. Preacher, heal thyself.

The sanctions were passed by a republican controlled house and senate.

President Trump signed new sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea after overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.

The vote on new sanctions comes as an investigation into possible election meddling and cyberattacks by Russia continues. It was one of the rare instances where both sides of the aisle were able to come together and pass legislation

But there were 5 US lawmakers who voted against the bill: 4 libertarians and 1 progressive independent.

Those lawmakers were US Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.), and US Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Which sanctions, specifically, did Trump refuse to implement? 

Some of you can but that's a pretty rare talent.  But the fact remains, all of those events occured with Obama's full knowledge and active participation in keeping the information from the American people.  By the same people who seem to be unable to stop anal leakage with their own head.

I know you might like to forget any involvement of Obama but he was the POTUS and the events under discussion was on his watch.

WHY DID OBAMA DO NOTHING UNTIL HE WAS NEARLY OUT OF OFFICE AND THEN DUMP A PILE OF SHIT ON THE DESK FOR HIS SUCCESSOR?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey bad latte, you DO realize we just threw out 60 of their diplomats a couple of days ago, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The sanctions were passed by a republican controlled house and senate.

Indeed. So you would think that they'd have a problem with him refusing to implement the sanctions they voted on. Turns out, like you, they lack the balls to call out the president on their team. 

You might also want to check out the thread title. It's not about Obama, no matter how much you need to deflect from the clown in office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Russian sanctions passed by 97% of Congress. Not implemented by the President himself. It's stuff like that which proves Trump is soft on Russia.

But hey, we understand - you have to rune defence for the Republicans come hell or high water. I expect you'll suddenly notice all of the obvious stuff about the same time the GOP disowns Trump. Until then, you're willing to sacrifice all integrity, character, and credibility on the altar of party loyalty.

I find the Trump administration's explanation for not implementing the sanctions to be weak but it could only constitute proof that Trump is soft on Russia to one who studiously ignores his other actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Indeed. So you would think that they'd have a problem with him refusing to implement the sanctions they voted on. Turns out, like you, they lack the balls to call out the president on their team. 

You might also want to check out the thread title. It's not about Obama, no matter how much you need to deflect from the clown in office. 

Which did Trump refuse to implement on Russia?

I gave you specific actions that actually harmed Russia as a nation (not just a few of Putin's buddies) you are being pretty general in your use of 'refusal'. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

I find the Trump administration's explanation for not implementing the sanctions to be weak but it could only constitute proof that Trump is soft on Russia to one who studiously ignores his other actions.

The sanctions that the law left to the President's discretion included sanctions against other nations, some of whom are our allies.  Trump did NOT refuse to do as congress demanded, he followed the law and used his constitutional discretion in matters of foreign policy within the law as passed.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Monday that it had decided against imposing any sanctions on countries that buy Russian military equipment, saying that a new law was already deterring billions of dollars in such purchases.

The law required that sanctions be imposed against large purchasers of Russian arms, but it granted exceptions for a variety of reasons. The administration explained the exceptions it was citing to members of Congress in a classified briefing on Monday.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The sanctions that the law left to the President's discretion included sanctions against other nations, some of whom are our allies.  Trump did NOT refuse to do as congress demanded, he followed the law and used his constitutional discretion in matters of foreign policy within the law as passed.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Monday that it had decided against imposing any sanctions on countries that buy Russian military equipment, saying that a new law was already deterring billions of dollars in such purchases.

The law required that sanctions be imposed against large purchasers of Russian arms, but it granted exceptions for a variety of reasons. The administration explained the exceptions it was citing to members of Congress in a classified briefing on Monday.

image.png.0c0e2cdc949cc9a6610ae79865c574fe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Which did Trump refuse to implement on Russia?

I gave you specific actions that actually harmed Russia as a nation (not just a few of Putin's buddies) you are being pretty general in your use of 'refusal'. 

It's been discussed here, at length, before. Unfortunately for those that want to use the "repeat yourself once more for me" trolling technique - Tom wore that shtick out years ago. 

If you truly don't know, thirty second Google will educate you. If you do know or simply aren't interested in knowing, but want to waste time - see above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dog said:

I find the Trump administration's explanation for not implementing the sanctions to be weak but it could only constitute proof that Trump is soft on Russia to one who studiously ignores his other actions.

Your definition of "proof" is as flexible as your principles, Dog. The Dog arguing about the proof of Hillary's corruption and that of the FBI would disagree with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 8:05 AM, Cal20sailor said:

When was the last time congress sent a bill to the WH with a 99% approval vote that didn't get signed.  DO YOUR FUCKING HOMEWORK!

Must be serious then and the threat is real! OMG!  Quick get your guns and be on the lookout. We need to be vigilant! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Your definition of "proof" is as flexible as your principles, Dog. The Dog arguing about the proof of Hillary's corruption and that of the FBI would disagree with you. 

I take it you're not going to attempt a defense of your claim then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

It's been discussed here, at length, before. Unfortunately for those that want to use the "repeat yourself once more for me" trolling technique - Tom wore that shtick out years ago. 

If you truly don't know, thirty second Google will educate you. If you do know or simply aren't interested in knowing, but want to waste time - see above. 

The google shows up a lot of opinions as do most of the threads here.  I see a lot of crass behavior but don't see examples of unconstitutional actions.  Most of the illegal behavior seems to come from leaking information from various investigations.  The kind of thing McCabe was fired for.  Trump was the president when he was fired but his actions in revealing information about an ongoing investigation predates the election not just the inauguration.

So, once again, please cite specific actions of the POTUS which show favor to Russia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump better watch out..... If he steps out of line Putin might send "The Night Wolves"! to teach him a lesson.... :D:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I take it you're not going to attempt a defense of your claim then.

I'm not going to play the "what will Dog consider acceptable as 'proof' today" game. You will, of course, pretend it means something more than having no time for your shit on my long weekend. It's what you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

I'm not going to play the "what will Dog consider acceptable as 'proof' today" game. You will, of course, pretend it means something more than having no time for your shit on my long weekend. It's what you do.

A strategic retreat. Good choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

The google shows up a lot of opinions as do most of the threads here.

It will also show up int he first five results, facts above and beyond opinion. That you wish to dismiss facts as mere opinion is kind of why I can't be bothered with your games tonight. 

 

1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

So, once again, please cite specific actions of the POTUS which show favor to Russia.

Already done. And as expected, you ignored that and tried making the issue about Obama. Just as you had no respect for those constantly bringing up Bush when you took issue with Obama, same applies in return when you bring up Obama when deflecting for / defending the current GOP president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

A strategic retreat. Good choice.

 

7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You will, of course, pretend it means something more than having no time for your shit on my long weekend. It's what you do.

So very surprised. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bent Sailor said:

 

So very surprised. :rolleyes: 

You obviously have the time, what you don't have is a defense. Hence the strategic retreat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Most of the illegal behavior seems to come from leaking information from various investigations.  The kind of thing McCabe was fired for.  Trump was the president when he was fired but his actions in revealing information about an ongoing investigation predates the election not just the inauguration.

In summary: The FBI determined in an internal review that former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should be terminated, according to The New York Times. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe. That made President Donald Trump happy, therefor Trump is Putin's lap dog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

It will also show up int he first five results, facts above and beyond opinion. That you wish to dismiss facts as mere opinion is kind of why I can't be bothered with your games tonight. 

 

Already done. And as expected, you ignored that and tried making the issue about Obama. Just as you had no respect for those constantly bringing up Bush when you took issue with Obama, same applies in return when you bring up Obama when deflecting for / defending the current GOP president.

It's your opportunity to make it about Trump.

Dodge if you like if you can't do that.

As regard to "mandated" sanctions against Russia, imposing sanctions on other countries who deal with Russia is not a sanction against Russia, it would be a sanction against other countries like India and Turkey, at least nominally our allies, who have some ongoing commercial and governmental arrangements with Russia.

If, for examle, the sanctions were not indirect and at the discretion of the president (per the actual law) you might have a case.  You can find the law here at the GPO.

Here is the relevant section.  Note the use of the word MAY

SEC. 235. SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.
    (a) Sanctions Described.--The sanctions to be imposed with respect
to a person under section 224(a)(2), 231(b), 232(a), or 233(a) are the
following:
        (1) Export-import bank assistance for exports to sanctioned
    persons.--The President may direct the Export-Import Bank of the
    United States not to give approval to the issuance of any
    guarantee, insurance, extension of credit, or participation in the
    extension of credit in connection with the export of any goods or
    services to the sanctioned person.
        (2) Export sanction.--The President may order the United States
    Government not to issue any specific license and not to grant any
    other specific permission or authority to export any goods or
    technology to the sanctioned person under--
            (A) the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601
        et seq.) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International
        Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
            (B) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
            (C) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.);
        or
            (D) any other statute that requires the prior review and
        approval of the United States Government as a condition for the
        export or reexport of goods or services.
        (3) Loans from united states financial institutions.--The
    President may prohibit any United States financial institution from
    making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling
    more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period unless the person is
    engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or
    credits are provided for such activities.
        (4) Loans from international financial institutions.--The
    President may direct the United States executive director to each
    international financial institution to use the voice and vote of
    the United States to oppose any loan from the international
    financial institution that would benefit the sanctioned person.
        (5) Prohibitions on financial institutions.--The following
    prohibitions may be imposed against the sanctioned person if that
    person is a financial institution:
            (A) Prohibition on designation as primary dealer.--Neither
        the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System nor the
        Federal Reserve Bank of New York may designate, or permit the
        continuation of any prior designation of, the financial
        institution as a primary dealer in United States Government
        debt instruments.
            (B) Prohibition on service as a repository of government
        funds.--The financial institution may not serve as agent of the
        United States Government or serve as repository for United
        States Government funds.
    The imposition of either sanction under subparagraph (A) or (B)
    shall be treated as one sanction for purposes of subsection (b),
    and the imposition of both such sanctions shall be treated as two
    sanctions for purposes of subsection (b).
        (6) Procurement sanction.--The United States Government may not
    procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any
    goods or services from the sanctioned person.
        (7) Foreign exchange.--The President may, pursuant to such
    regulations as the President may prescribe, prohibit any
    transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the
    jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned
    person has any interest.
        (8) Banking transactions.--The President may, pursuant to such
    regulations as the President may prescribe, prohibit any transfers
    of credit or payments between financial institutions or by,
    through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such
    transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United
    States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person.
        (9) Property transactions.--The President may, pursuant to such
    regulations as the President may prescribe, prohibit any person
    from--
            (A) acquiring, holding, withholding, using, transferring,
        withdrawing, transporting, importing, or exporting any property
        that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and
        with respect to which the sanctioned person has any interest;
            (B) dealing in or exercising any right, power, or privilege
        with respect to such property; or
            (C) conducting any transaction involving such property.
        (10) Ban on investment in equity or debt of sanctioned
    person.--The President may, pursuant to such regulations or
    guidelines as the President may prescribe, prohibit any United
    States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts
    of equity or debt instruments of the sanctioned person.
        (11) Exclusion of corporate officers.--The President may direct
    the Secretary of State to deny a visa to, and the Secretary of
    Homeland Security to exclude from the United States, any alien that
    the President determines is a corporate officer or principal of, or
    a shareholder with a controlling interest in, the sanctioned
    person.
        (12) Sanctions on principal executive officers.--The President
    may impose on the principal executive officer or officers of the
    sanctioned person, or on persons performing similar functions and
    with similar authorities as such officer or officers, any of the
    sanctions under this subsection.
    (b) Sanctioned Person Defined.--In this section, the term
``sanctioned person'' means a person subject to sanctions under section
224(a)(2), 231(b), 232(a), or 233(a).

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 7:58 PM, SloopJonB said:

image.png.0c0e2cdc949cc9a6610ae79865c574fe.png

Haha!  That's funny.  

And 100% true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

I take it you're not going to attempt a defense of your claim then.

"repeat yourself once more for me" trolling technique

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump puts his left pant leg on first  tomorrow B L with start a troll interpreting it as a secret signal to Putin.  

After  almost three years (since announcing) and millions and millions of dollars, thousands or journalists, secrets agencies, Mueller, the FBI, Congress, the Democrats, private investigators, spies, millions of internet trolls, foreign governments, Putin and PA ..... You all came up with exactly bupkis. 

BL I sure hope you are going to be alright when your last hope fades. Do you have a close support network? Family and friends you can turn to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hapless, you just keep on keeping on with your blindly partisan hopes & dreams.

Those of whose synapses are still firing will wait until Mueller publishes his findings before telling the world what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dog said:

You obviously have the time, what you don't have is a defense. Hence the strategic retreat.

Yes. Because a thirty second post before bed is the same as one taking over five minutes proving my case only to have you (once again) redefine what is acceptable proof.

You cannot even maintain the same definition in from one post to the next.  No-one is stupid enough to bet against you changing it again when confronted with evidence you don't like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Saorsa said:

It's your opportunity to make it about Trump.

I've not diverted from the subject. The only dodging has been from those who don't want to talk about him. That would be on the sackless cowards wanting to make it about Obama. You for instance. 

 

Quote

As regard to "mandated" sanctions against Russia, imposing sanctions on other countries who deal with Russia is not a sanction against Russia, it would be a sanction against other countries like India and Turkey, at least nominally our allies, who have some ongoing commercial and governmental arrangements with Russia.

Sanctions are imposed on enemies through restrictions on "nominal allies" all the time. They are sanctions on Russia because they harm Russian interests. You know this because you are not stupid. Dishonest, yes. Loyal to the GOP, absolutely. Willing to ignore the obvious to defend them, evidently. But stupid? No, just willing to pretend it rather than admit you team fucked up. 

 

Quote

If, for examle, the sanctions were not indirect and at the discretion of the president (per the actual law) you might have a case.  You can find the law here at the GPO.

I never claimed that what Trump did was illegal. I simply stated he refused to implement the sanctions. That remains true. Try someone else for your straw man, Saorsa. 

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I've not diverted from the subject. The only dodging has been from those who don't want to talk about him. That would be on the sackless cowards wanting to make it about Obama. You for instance. 

 

Sanctions are imposed on enemies through restrictions on "nominal allies" all the time. They are sanctions on Russia because they harm Russian interests. You know this because you are not stupid. Dishonest, yes. Loyal to the GOP, absolutely. Willing to ignore the obvious to defend them, evidently. But stupid? No, just willing to pretend it rather than admit you team fucked up. 

 

I never claimed that what Trump did was illegal. I simply stated he refused to implement the sanctions. That remains true. Try someone else for your straw man, Saorsa. 

 

 

So, at last, you admit that Trump is fulfilling the duties of his office in accordance with the law.

You should probably try to find a new blusterfuck 'cause you got nothing here.

Unless, of course you can come up with some specific action as POTUS that actually favored the Russian interests.

And, don't worry, I won't mention that Obama didn't do shit until two months after the loser lost and two weeks before he was outta the White House and would actually have to implement the sanctions.  All those EOs that were never implemented until they became the law would have limited his promised flexibility after the election.  Oh, wait, that was the previous election.  Nevermind.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

So, at last, you admit that Trump is fulfilling the duties of his office in accordance with the law.

I never stated his being soft on Russia was illegal. That is simply the argument you wish to have.

You must really be desperate if you're acting that stupid you cannot realise it is possible to be soft on Russia legally. Which is exactly what Trump did by refusing to enact sanctions passed by 97% of Congress. 

 

9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

And, don't worry, I won't mention that Obama didn't do shit until two months after the loser lost and two weeks before he was outta the White House and would actually have to implement the sanctions.  All those EOs that were never implemented until they became the law would have limited his promised flexibility after the election.  Oh, wait, that was the previous election.  Nevermind.

Once again, Saorsa, this is not a thread about Obama. Your inability to discuss anything about GOP fallibility without going back to a man not in power shows you know how weak your hand is.

Thanks for the tell, but we got it the first ten times. Don't need to repeat it every bluff you make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I never stated his being soft on Russia was illegal. That is simply the argument you wish to have.

You must really be desperate if you're acting that stupid you cannot realise it is possible to be soft on Russia legally. Which is exactly what Trump did by refusing to enact sanctions passed by 97% of Congress. 

 

Once again, Saorsa, this is not a thread about Obama. Your inability to discuss anything about GOP fallibility without going back to a man not in power shows you know how weak your hand is.

Thanks for the tell, but we got it the first ten times. Don't need to repeat it every bluff you make. 

How can it not be about Obama? 

All of the actions that were the basis of the EOs occured before Trump was inaugurated.  The majority before he was elected.

Obama issued the EOs that are cited in the law. 

None of the reporting on the EOs reuired by the law were necessary until the law was passed. 

Since you dragged the GOP in you've got another fail there.  The GOP hold the congress that passed the law enabling the EOs.

If "I never stated his being soft on Russia was illegal. That is simply the argument you wish to have." isn't the argument you wish to have perhaps you shouldn't be rabbiting on about "mandated" sanction.  That implies that the full list of sanctions are a law.  If they are a law and not "the sense of congress" then not implementing them is illegal.

IF you want it to be about Trump then list where you can show evidence of him taking ANY action as POTUS that can be deemed soft on Russia.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How can it not be about Obama? 

For the same reason it wasn't about Bush when you complained about people bringing him up. Obama is not in power. He is not in the White House. He is not in Congress. In point of fact, he has no power over Trump's calls whatsoever. It has been over a year since he had any say in anything to do with Russia. Just as you were calling out those suffering an obsession with Bush in Obama's second year of power, I'm calling out you out for your obsession with Obama in Trump's second year of power.

 

13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

Since you dragged the GOP in you've got another fail there.  The GOP hold the congress that passed the law enabling the EOs.

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph there Saorsa. I didn't drag the GOP in. The GOP hold the congress that passed the law enabling the EO's. Your words. They are "dragged in" by the fact they are the party in power that passed the laws in question. They are the party in majority when 97% of Congress passed into law the sanctions Trump, being soft on Russia, refused to implement. 

 

13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

If "I never stated his being soft on Russia was illegal. That is simply the argument you wish to have." isn't the argument you wish to have perhaps you shouldn't be rabbiting on about "mandated" sanction.  That implies that the full list of sanctions are a law.  If they are a law and not "the sense of congress" then not implementing them is illegal.

You might want to look at who mentioned "mandated" sanction again, dipstick. There is indeed someone "rabbiting on" about that, but it's the same moron that keeps trying to make the discussion about Obama. Check out post #38 for the first mention of those mandated sanctions and take your issues up with that forgetful village idiot. :lol: 

 

13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

IF you want it to be about Trump then list where you can show evidence of him taking ANY action as POTUS that can be deemed soft on Russia.

Done already. We don't need your provably partisan stamp of approval on that. Especially given, as shown above, you are not altogether capable of a consistent argument from one post to the next, from one paragraph to the next, or even from one sentence to the next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

For the same reason it wasn't about Bush when you complained about people bringing him up. Obama is not in power. He is not in the White House. He is not in Congress. In point of fact, he has no power over Trump's calls whatsoever. It has been over a year since he had any say in anything to do with Russia. Just as you were calling out those suffering an obsession with Bush in Obama's second year of power, I'm calling out you out for your obsession with Obama in Trump's second year of power.

 

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph there Saorsa. I didn't drag the GOP in. The GOP hold the congress that passed the law enabling the EO's. Your words. They are "dragged in" by the fact they are the party in power that passed the laws in question. They are the party in majority when 97% of Congress passed into law the sanctions Trump, being soft on Russia, refused to implement. 

 

You might want to look at who mentioned "mandated" sanction again, dipstick. There is indeed someone "rabbiting on" about that, but it's the same moron that keeps trying to make the discussion about Obama. Check out post #38 for the first mention of those mandated sanctions and take your issues up with that forgetful village idiot. :lol: 

 

Done already. We don't need your provably partisan stamp of approval on that. Especially given, as shown above, you are not altogether capable of a consistent argument from one post to the next, from one paragraph to the next, or even from one sentence to the next. 

Okie Dokie!  Forget Obama existed and did bugger all as the Russians 'corrupted' our election process for a year with his full  knowledge.

The challenge remains.  Show me an action of Trump's acting in his role as President of the US which benefited the Russians.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Okie Dokie!  Forget Obama existed and did bugger all as the Russians 'corrupted' our election process for a year with his full  knowledge.

You keep bringing him up with ever crazier flame-bait hoping I'll bite. Thread isn't about him, Saorsa. Do stop bringing him up, one might think (applying your own standards) that you have nothing good to say about the current POTUS the way you keep focusing on the past like this.

 

Quote

The challenge remains.  Show me an action of Trump's acting in his role as President of the US which benefited the Russians.

Challenge already met. He decided not to implement the sanctions against Russia passed by 97% of Congress. That is of benefit to the Russians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You keep bringing him up with ever crazier flame-bait hoping I'll bite. Thread isn't about him, Saorsa. Do stop bringing him up, one might think (applying your own standards) that you have nothing good to say about the current POTUS the way you keep focusing on the past like this.

 

Challenge already met. He decided not to implement the sanctions against Russia passed by 97% of Congress. That is of benefit to the Russians. 

Actually, he did implement sanctions and report on them in accordance with the law as passed.

The challenge remains unanswered.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Actually, he did implement sanctions and report on them in accordance with the law as passed.

Imagine I said he didn't implement any sanctions. What a rebuttal that would have been if I had!

Sadly, I didn't say that. You have already agreed he didn't implement all of them. You even provided a handy link allowing everyone to see he didn't even implement most of them. My statement is still correct, regardless of your attempt to spin it as saying something else. 

 

Quote

The challenge remains unanswered.

The challenge remains answered. Despite your dishonest attempts to mischaracterise what I said. Again.

Oh, and I did want to thank you for showing your true depth of character above. It takes an honest man to concede he falsely accused others of rabbiting on about something he brought up and only he mentioned. It is a demonstration of the integrity said man has apologising for such a fuck up. You have truly demonstrated the level of honesty and integrity you bring to the discussion above, and I am most grateful for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Imagine I said he didn't implement any sanctions. What a rebuttal that would have been if I had!

Sadly, I didn't say that. You have already agreed he didn't implement all of them. You even provided a handy link allowing everyone to see he didn't even implement most of them. My statement is still correct, regardless of your attempt to spin it as saying something else. 

 

The challenge remains answered. Despite your dishonest attempts to mischaracterise what I said. Again.

Oh, and I did want to thank you for showing your true depth of character above. It takes an honest man to concede he falsely accused others of rabbiting on about something he brought up and only he mentioned. It is a demonstration of the integrity said man has apologising for such a fuck up. You have truly demonstrated the level of honesty and integrity you bring to the discussion above, and I am most grateful for that.

So, he has done nothing to benefit Russia which is precisely my point.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saorsa said:

So, he has done nothing to benefit Russia which is precisely my point.

Not implementing sanctions is of benefit to Russia in the same way that not sending a criminal to jail is of benefit to the criminal. Which is precisely my point and makes you wrong.

 

And once again, congratulations on manning up to your earlier bullshit. One can truly see the character of a man who will face up to their mistakes rather than pretend they never happened and were never called on it. Truly, your decision on confronting and admitting your failures is a testament to the man behind the posts. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not implementing sanctions is of benefit to Russia in the same way that not sending a criminal to jail is of benefit to the criminal. Which is precisely my point and makes you wrong.

The War Powers Act authorizes the POTUS to launch a nuclear war.  But, it doesn't require him to do so.

Is the fact that Trump hasn't nuked Russia or at least shot down a recon aircraft a sign of weakness?  BTW, these a cool ass planes.russian_bear_h_aircraft_mod_45158140.jpg

WAIT!! maybe we could revoke their most favored nation status.  Boy oh boy, that would show those fuckers.

You seem to want to ignore all of the actions taken that do not favor Russia.

To date,  the US has:

That's a list of 7 items with 8 links to confirm.

Feel free to come up with something that shows any presidential action actually favoring Russia. 

Not doing something that you would like him to isn't doing something to help Russia.  In fact, the idea of demanding sanctions against individuals and a few companies in a country of 144 million is pretty fucking weak.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The War Powers Act authorizes the POTUS to launch a nuclear war.  But, it doesn't require him to do so.

War and sanctions are not even nearly the same thing. That you are trying to draw a false equivalence between the two demonstrates even you know how weak your position is.

 

Quote

You seem to want to ignore all of the actions taken that do not favor Russia.

Not at all. I have not denied that Trump has been forced by circumstances into some actions he'd prefer not to have done. I clearly remember him bitching about signing the bill Congress overrode his capability to veto on regarding the sanctions for instance. One doesn't need to do nothing at all to be soft on something. I seem to recall someone being called soft on immigration despite sending more illegal immigrants back than any other president.

 

Quote

Once again, I never said that Trump implemented no sanctions at all. He simply didn't implement most of them as passed by 97% of Congress. A bill passed specifically in response to Russia's interfering with the US election, not as some potential stop-gap to help in some hypothetical situation in the future. Sanctions to be implemented now... which Trump bitched about having to sign into law (he didn't have a choice) and then ignored the majority of.

Just because you desire to be arguing against someone who has said that Trump has done nothing at all doesn't make it so. Despite you demolishing the premise you imagined up for me, the one I actually made is quite intact. Try again.

 

Quote

Not doing something that you would like him to isn't doing something to help Russia.  In fact, the idea of demanding sanctions against individuals and a few companies in a country of 144 million is pretty fucking weak.

Sorry, my argument is that Trump is soft on Russia. The argument he is going out of his way to help Russia is your invention. You're making shit up again.

And on that subject, I must once again thank you for deciding on how you addressed your earlier lies. One can get the true measure of a man by watching whether he admits to failure and apologises for false accusations he made... or whether he cravenly ducks admitting anything hoping everyone will forget it. You show your true integrity each and every time you make that choice. I couldn't be more grateful you continue to do so. From the bottom of my heart - thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Sorry, my argument is that Trump is soft on Russia.

And you have yet to show evidence in support of that argument.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

And you have yet to show evidence in support of that argument.

I have provided all I need to prove it to a rational observer. I never expected you to accept anything that undermined your loyalty to the GOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

I have provided all I need to prove it to a rational observer. I never expected you to accept anything that undermined your loyalty to the GOP. 

Rational observers may disagree. You seem to think you have a divine given right to make declarations on behalf of others. "By the power vested in me"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunyazad said:

Rational observers may disagree. You seem to think you have a divine given right to make declarations on behalf of others. "By the power vested in me"

They may. However a rational observer would note that after declaring yourself done with me, you are now following me around from thread to thread like a lost puppy needing attention. 

Combined with the fact your account is mere days old, has made nothing but troll posts in PA plus the CLEAN thread, and has yet to actually comment on the topic (merely those discussing it) - those rational observers would be forgiven for thinking you're nothing but a gutless sock. You might not be, just pointing out what the preponderance of evidence would suggest. 

That would be your cue to start commenting on me again and prove the point. ;)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porton Down scientists CANNOT confirm nerve agent used on Skripals was made in Russia

Scientists at the top secret army base Porton Down are unable to link the samples to Russia, after weeks of Moscow insisting it had nothing to do with the attack. Theresa May’s Government has repeatedly blamed the Kremlin and imposed sanctions on Russia, including the expulsion of 23 diplomats.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, random said:

Porton Down scientists CANNOT confirm nerve agent used on Skripals was made in Russia

Scientists at the top secret army base Porton Down are unable to link the samples to Russia, after weeks of Moscow insisting it had nothing to do with the attack. Theresa May’s Government has repeatedly blamed the Kremlin and imposed sanctions on Russia, including the expulsion of 23 diplomats.

Very interesting. I've seen that on the news several times this morning. The cracks in the "plot" are starting to appear.

 

 

(wrong thread - scroll down to this thread -

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Very interesting. I've seen that on the news several times this morning. The cracks in the "plot" are starting to appear.

 

 

(wrong thread - scroll down to this thread -

 

Your source is RT?  Holy shit.  You might as well support your bullshit with Pravda. 

  I don't understand why you guys want to carry water for Putin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Your source is RT?  Holy shit.  You might as well support your bullshit with Pravda. 

  I don't understand why you guys want to carry water for Putin.  

WTF is RT?

 

Source is the UK government! Porton Down is a secret British research establishment - which coincidently has Novichok in stock.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/03/porton-down-experts-unable-to-verify-precise-source-of-novichok

https://news.sky.com/story/porton-down-experts-unable-to-identify-precise-source-of-novichok-that-poisoned-spy-11315387

ABC news has the story RIGHT NOW - as I type.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dunyazad - a downvote is still a response. I don't mind, it just proves you care. Feel free to go bonkers proving you're not just another sock for an old troll. :lol: 

5ac40aeca545c_ScreenShot2018-04-04at9_13_30am.png.a53546f986f6c8736cd04358399bcf0a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Very interesting. I've seen that on the news several times this morning. The cracks in the "plot" are starting to appear.

You really are not the brightest spark in the box. However, as you are so into "highlighting" the relevant point; let me help you with that...

shot.png.aadd15cdb3345c68f73b43313638ce5f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

 

  I don't understand why you guys want to carry water for Putin.  

I have NEVER, EVER, EVER,  "carried water" for Putin, (I assume you mean supporting Putin)

As I have stated several times - I will keep an open mind until there is proof pointing in any direction. There isn't yet.

I don't jump to conclusions. I am not American and have not been brainwashed all my life that Russians are bad people. I don't believe in your "reds under the beds" theories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Port Phillip Sailor said:

As I have stated several times - I will keep an open mind until there is proof pointing in any direction. There isn't yet.

That is supremely naive. There is never "proof" in this sort of incident.

Only a balance of probabilities - and there is certainly that in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I have NEVER, EVER, EVER,  "carried water" for Putin, (I assume you mean supporting Putin)

You justified his annexation of the Crimea using damn near the exact same wording as Hitler used to justify going into the Sudentland.  So I'm not sure how you can say you "NEVER, EVER EVER" carried water for Putin. 

Go ahead again and tell us how the Crimea was Russian and has always been Russian so that justifies the invasion.  Exact same thing Hitler said.  

What's curious to me is your lack of self-awareness.  You like fascists.  Tell us why so we can understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

You justified his annexation of the Crimea using damn near the exact same wording as Hitler used to justify going into the Sudentland.  So I'm not sure how you can say you "NEVER, EVER EVER" carried water for Putin. 

Go ahead again and tell us how the Crimea was Russian and has always been Russian so that justifies the invasion.  Exact same thing Hitler said.  

What's curious to me is your lack of self-awareness.  You like fascists.  Tell us why so we can understand. 

Hey arsehole. I lived in Spain while it was ruled by a Fascist dictator. I have NO liking for fascists or their ways. Do you know what a denunciado is/was? And I couldn't give a fuck what Hitler said.

It surprises me somewhat how many of you Americans seem obsessed with Nazis & Fascists. You do have a very active fascist population in your country. Wasn't that what the Charlottsville incident was about? That's how you keep the African- Americans & Jews under control isn't it.

I suspect the news you got about Crimea was the sanitized version your government wants you to know. Again - fear of the Russian bogeyman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

I suspect the news you got about Crimea was the sanitized version your government wants you to know.

7248098e11ed11c36b20689a4b572f16fb2a3673

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think he's a Randumb sock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! The jackals are running. Don't know what they are posting but I can imagine. Frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs because their "reds under the beds" conspiracy theory is beginning to crack up. What will they do if they are proven wrong? Their heads will probably implode. Probably won't matter as there is nothing in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Wow! The jackals are running. Don't know what they are posting but I can imagine.

Uh huh. You realise no-one believes you on that right? You've already proven you read the posts by responding to them. Repeatedly. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Hey arsehole. I lived in Spain while it was ruled by a Fascist dictator. I have NO liking for fascists or their ways. Do you know what a denunciado is/was? And I couldn't give a fuck what Hitler said.

It surprises me somewhat how many of you Americans seem obsessed with Nazis & Fascists. You do have a very active fascist population in your country. Wasn't that what the Charlottsville incident was about? That's how you keep the African- Americans & Jews under control isn't it.

I suspect the news you got about Crimea was the sanitized version your government wants you to know. Again - fear of the Russian bogeyman.

You have what Marxists call a "false consciousness."'  Google it i you like.  

As you rightly point out there are many Americans that have supported and still do embrace fascist ideology.  

It's much like someone that lived in fascist Spain but years later defends a fascist like Putin.  There really isn't any understanding in it-- as you have demonstrated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites