US House stalls Senate Russian Sanctions bill

[whichphilosophy]

Known signs of Trump and Russian issues were captured in the Spring of 2016. Email cracking occurred well before the election as well. So your tired butthurt argument oddly enough suffers from butthurt of its own.

Yes, Hillary's whole foreign policy has always been "Russia is bad"

There are good and bad governments. The US has a lot of strange and bad bedfellows. Russia isn't the worst by any means. Russia is getting in the way of the US plans for destruction of the Middle East and Hilary doesn't like that.

It would be more logically beneficial for the two countries to be on good terms. However the Democrats claim Russia influenced the elections and Trump colluded with the Russians, but that ship seems to have pretty much run aground for the time being.

Whether they are on good or bad terms the US and Russia will continue to spy on each other.

 

[whichphilosophy]

April 2017 Trade with Russia

Exports 687,000,000
Imports 1,347,000,000

Fuck that trade. We have better partners elsewhere.

I agree we have Saudi

In April 2017

Exports 1,413,000

Imports 1.621,000

 

[whichphilosophy]

But in general Russia-US trade is negligible compared to Russia-EU, that's why EU (rightfully) suspects US trying to get EU market share from Russia.

Where do you get your media? Putin News Daily?!

There is a lot more trade with the EU than Russia. You can check it on

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html

Capt Obvious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obviously I am not getting it from C-SPAN.
http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-and-austria-warn-u-s-over-expanded-russia-sanctions/
http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-angela-merkel-slams-planned-us-sanctions-on-russia/a-39276878
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-austria-slam-us-sanctions-russia-48054975
http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/germany-troubled-over-peculiar-new-us-sanctions-on-russia/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40299760

"To threaten companies in Germany, Austria and other European firms with fines in the US if they take part in or finance energy projects like Nord Stream 2 represents a new and negative dimension to US-European relations," they added.

They said the sanctions were clearly about US liquefied natural gas exports, US jobs and squeezing Russia out of the European market.

You said the EU.

And provided the links.

You provided no links indicating the EU was concerned with US meddling.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/u-s-russia-sanctions-punish-europe-too


For these who are too lazy to read.

And more:

In a sharply worded joint statement issued Thursday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said they couldn't "accept the threat of illegal extraterritorial sanctions being imposed on European companies that are participating in efforts to expand Europe's energy supply network." Europe's energy supply is a European affair, not an American one, they wrote. Gabriel and Kern also warned the U.S. against expanding sanctions without consulting European partners

Translation: "US Congress, go fuck yourself, and you US frackers, who bought congress votes, go fuck yourself too"

You cited five articles that cite the same two people. And not the EU.

 

[Malintent]

the Democrats claim Russia influenced the elections and Trump colluded with the Russians, but that ship seems to have pretty much run aground for the time being.

What the hell are you talking about?? It is factually confirmed, by each and every one of the 17 (or was it 18, I forget) intelligence agencies that Russia has been, is currently, and will continue, to hack elections around the world.. not just the US. That is fact. no opinions. fact. What is not substantiated by publically (and therefore illegally) disclosed evidence is collusion with the Russians by a US person. Jared was in charge of the datacenters for the campaign, and is being investigated for any interactions with the Russians on the data for which he was a custodian. We (rightly) have no idea how that is going. that is still in the realm of opinion (publically) now.

do you get it? Russia certainly, and without question hacked us to try and influence the election (both directly at the polling centers in over 20 states - which seems so far to have probably failed, and indirectly through propaganda - i.e. 'fake news' - which was a stunning success. US persons may or may not have been involved, and that is still the core of the investigation.

Look, you are free (and should be respected) for having your own opinions. That is what freedom is all about.
You, however, are not free to make up your own facts. facts are facts and not subject to your opinions or desires.

 

[whichphilosophy]

the Democrats claim Russia influenced the elections and Trump colluded with the Russians, but that ship seems to have pretty much run aground for the time being.

What the hell are you talking about?? It is factually confirmed, by each and every one of the 17 (or was it 18, I forget) intelligence agencies that Russia has been, is currently, and will continue, to hack elections around the world.. not just the US. That is fact. no opinions. fact. What is not substantiated by publically (and therefore illegally) disclosed evidence is collusion with the Russians by a US person. Jared was in charge of the datacenters for the campaign, and is being investigated for any interactions with the Russians on the data for which he was a custodian. We (rightly) have no idea how that is going. that is still in the realm of opinion (publically) now.

do you get it? Russia certainly, and without question hacked us to try and influence the election (both directly at the polling centers in over 20 states - which seems so far to have probably failed, and indirectly through propaganda - i.e. 'fake news' - which was a stunning success. US persons may or may not have been involved, and that is still the core of the investigation.

Look, you are free (and should be respected) for having your own opinions. That is what freedom is all about.
You, however, are not free to make up your own facts. facts are facts and not subject to your opinions or desires.

The Russians, British, Israeli, US, French, Chinese, Germans et all try to hack 24/7.

The issue is whether the Russians influenced the elections or collusion with the Trump campaign.

The agencies produced a meaningless unclassified report, and could not produce anything other than opinion. In a democratic society we should not have to rely on our Intelligence Gurus telling us what they regard as truth.

Nonetheless also disparity in such a claim of 17 agencies (according to Clinton)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

Then there is this one:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/f...cies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

Verdict: False

While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three,

Fact Check:

The intelligence community is comprised of 17 civilian and military agencies including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.

“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under the aegis of my former office.”

A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the same verdict about Russian interference.

So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17 agencies had reached a consensus.

 

[blastula]

stupid shit

Wrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What the hell are you talking about?? It is factually confirmed, by each and every one of the 17 (or was it 18, I forget) intelligence agencies that Russia has been, is currently, and will continue, to hack elections around the world.. not just the US. That is fact. no opinions. fact. What is not substantiated by publically (and therefore illegally) disclosed evidence is collusion with the Russians by a US person. Jared was in charge of the datacenters for the campaign, and is being investigated for any interactions with the Russians on the data for which he was a custodian. We (rightly) have no idea how that is going. that is still in the realm of opinion (publically) now.

do you get it? Russia certainly, and without question hacked us to try and influence the election (both directly at the polling centers in over 20 states - which seems so far to have probably failed, and indirectly through propaganda - i.e. 'fake news' - which was a stunning success. US persons may or may not have been involved, and that is still the core of the investigation.

Look, you are free (and should be respected) for having your own opinions. That is what freedom is all about.
You, however, are not free to make up your own facts. facts are facts and not subject to your opinions or desires.

The Russians, British, Israeli, US, French, Chinese, Germans et all try to hack 24/7.

The issue is whether the Russians influenced the elections or collusion with the Trump campaign.

The agencies produced a meaningless unclassified report, and could not produce anything other than opinion. In a democratic society we should not have to rely on our Intelligence Gurus telling us what they regard as truth.

Nonetheless also disparity in such a claim of 17 agencies (according to Clinton)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

Then there is this one:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/f...cies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

Verdict: False

While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three,

Fact Check:

The intelligence community is comprised of 17 civilian and military agencies including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.

“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under the aegis of my former office.”

A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the same verdict about Russian interference.

So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17 agencies had reached a consensus.

Then this confirms 17 agencies

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...firms-russian-interference-us-election/214837

CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Fox News has independently confirmed that Russian-backed cyber militias were targeting US systems and influential US persons in the summer of 2015, and the operation evolved into an effort to interfere in the US election. These operations were sanctioned by the highest levels of the Russian government.

An effort to interfere in an election does not mean interference that changed the outcome.

So this is all still not fully clear and doesn't seem to have gone very far in recent weeks.

- - - Updated - - -

stupid shit

Wrong.

There is insufficient data to conclude wrong or right. For a start the US public are not telepathic when it comes to undisclosed reports.

 

[barbos]

Obviously I am not getting it from C-SPAN.
http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-and-austria-warn-u-s-over-expanded-russia-sanctions/
http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-angela-merkel-slams-planned-us-sanctions-on-russia/a-39276878
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-austria-slam-us-sanctions-russia-48054975
http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/germany-troubled-over-peculiar-new-us-sanctions-on-russia/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40299760

"To threaten companies in Germany, Austria and other European firms with fines in the US if they take part in or finance energy projects like Nord Stream 2 represents a new and negative dimension to US-European relations," they added.

They said the sanctions were clearly about US liquefied natural gas exports, US jobs and squeezing Russia out of the European market.

You said the EU.

And provided the links.

You provided no links indicating the EU was concerned with US meddling.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/u-s-russia-sanctions-punish-europe-too


For these who are too lazy to read.

And more:

In a sharply worded joint statement issued Thursday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said they couldn't "accept the threat of illegal extraterritorial sanctions being imposed on European companies that are participating in efforts to expand Europe's energy supply network." Europe's energy supply is a European affair, not an American one, they wrote. Gabriel and Kern also warned the U.S. against expanding sanctions without consulting European partners

Translation: "US Congress, go fuck yourself, and you US frackers, who bought congress votes, go fuck yourself too"

You cited five articles that cite the same two people. And not the EU.

You are losing it.

 

[barbos]

the Democrats claim Russia influenced the elections and Trump colluded with the Russians, but that ship seems to have pretty much run aground for the time being.

What the hell are you talking about?? It is factually confirmed, by each and every one of the 17 (or was it 18, I forget) intelligence agencies that Russia has been, is currently, and will continue, to hack elections around the world.. not just the US. That is fact. no opinions. fact. What is not substantiated by publically (and therefore illegally) disclosed evidence is collusion with the Russians by a US person. Jared was in charge of the datacenters for the campaign, and is being investigated for any interactions with the Russians on the data for which he was a custodian. We (rightly) have no idea how that is going. that is still in the realm of opinion (publically) now.

do you get it? Russia certainly, and without question hacked us to try and influence the election (both directly at the polling centers in over 20 states - which seems so far to have probably failed, and indirectly through propaganda - i.e. 'fake news' - which was a stunning success. US persons may or may not have been involved, and that is still the core of the investigation.

There is a fact of people claiming all that. But no real proof have been provided besides assurances from people like McCain who is not doing well in terms of brain functions. And proof that HAS been kinda provided were shown to be laughable at best.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What the hell are you talking about?? It is factually confirmed, by each and every one of the 17 (or was it 18, I forget) intelligence agencies that Russia has been, is currently, and will continue, to hack elections around the world.. not just the US. That is fact. no opinions. fact. What is not substantiated by publically (and therefore illegally) disclosed evidence is collusion with the Russians by a US person. Jared was in charge of the datacenters for the campaign, and is being investigated for any interactions with the Russians on the data for which he was a custodian. We (rightly) have no idea how that is going. that is still in the realm of opinion (publically) now.

do you get it? Russia certainly, and without question hacked us to try and influence the election (both directly at the polling centers in over 20 states - which seems so far to have probably failed, and indirectly through propaganda - i.e. 'fake news' - which was a stunning success. US persons may or may not have been involved, and that is still the core of the investigation.

There is a fact of people claiming all that. But no real proof have been provided besides assurances from people like McCain who is not doing well in terms of brain functions. And proof that HAS been kinda provided were shown to be laughable at best.

The whole thing is somewhat farcical. McCain's gibberish is however authentic gibberish and not fake gibberish.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You provided no links indicating the EU was concerned with US meddling.

He seems to have missed the distinction you are making. Maybe an illustration? How's your supply of crayons?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You provided no links indicating the EU was concerned with US meddling.

He seems to have missed the distinction you are making. Maybe an illustration? How's your supply of crayons?

I'll send an email to Mo Willems to see if he can do one more Elephant and Piggie book titled, "The Emu from the EU"

 

[Malintent]

For those that do not trust the US Intelligence communities to not unanimously lie (and get away with it, in light of all the alleged "leaking") because you have not personally been consulted on the data they are drawing conclusions on, I have a question. Why do you think that classified information from which a solid conclusion can be made by those we have trusted with national security would be shared with the likes of you? Maybe a little too much Facebook in your life has led you to believe that if it is not publically accessible, it does not exist? If we (and we are) investigating leads from information we have, how fucking stupid does one have to be to publically declare it?

If you buried a body in your backyard and the police sent you a letter saying that they think there may be something in your backyard, and they are intending to take a little look in a few weeks, and to please call them to schedule an appointment to take a look... you think that would be smart of them? Would you not take measures to ensure the morons that seem to know it's there never find it? Basic investigative common sense to keep this a secret. Even our functionally retarded president said, during campaign (the original campaign, not his ongoing one) that Obama was an idiot for revealing military plans to our targets by publically disclosing plans. Was he wrong? Is it better to share everything you know with everyone... get "likes".. oooooo

 

[barbos]

For those that do not trust the US Intelligence communities to not unanimously lie (and get away with it, in light of all the alleged "leaking") because you have not personally been consulted on the data they are drawing conclusions on, I have a question. Why do you think that classified information from which a solid conclusion can be made by those we have trusted with national security would be shared with the likes of you? Maybe a little too much Facebook in your life has led you to believe that if it is not publically accessible, it does not exist? If we (and we are) investigating leads from information we have, how fucking stupid does one have to be to publically declare it?

If you buried a body in your backyard and the police sent you a letter saying that they think there may be something in your backyard, and they are intending to take a little look in a few weeks, and to please call them to schedule an appointment to take a look... you think that would be smart of them? Would you not take measures to ensure the morons that seem to know it's there never find it? Basic investigative common sense to keep this a secret. Even our functionally retarded president said, during campaign (the original campaign, not his ongoing one) that Obama was an idiot for revealing military plans to our targets by publically disclosing plans. Was he wrong? Is it better to share everything you know with everyone... get "likes".. oooooo

So you are essentially saying Saddam Hussein had WMD, I hear you, loud and clear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For those that do not trust the US Intelligence communities to not unanimously lie (and get away with it, in light of all the alleged "leaking") because you have not personally been consulted on the data they are drawing conclusions on, I have a question. Why do you think that classified information from which a solid conclusion can be made by those we have trusted with national security would be shared with the likes of you? Maybe a little too much Facebook in your life has led you to believe that if it is not publically accessible, it does not exist? If we (and we are) investigating leads from information we have, how fucking stupid does one have to be to publically declare it?

If you buried a body in your backyard and the police sent you a letter saying that they think there may be something in your backyard, and they are intending to take a little look in a few weeks, and to please call them to schedule an appointment to take a look... you think that would be smart of them? Would you not take measures to ensure the morons that seem to know it's there never find it? Basic investigative common sense to keep this a secret. Even our functionally retarded president said, during campaign (the original campaign, not his ongoing one) that Obama was an idiot for revealing military plans to our targets by publically disclosing plans. Was he wrong? Is it better to share everything you know with everyone... get "likes".. oooooo

So you are essentially saying Saddam Hussein had WMD, I hear you, loud and clear.

He did, he had some stockpiles which were useless. The problem with the CIA analogy here is that the CIA didn't say "Let's go to war with Iraq", the CIA was asked to present information that would help the W Admin make a case for a war against Iraq. The Trump Admin is not asking for any info on Russian involvement in the US election.

 

[barbos]

So you are essentially saying Saddam Hussein had WMD, I hear you, loud and clear.

He did, he had some stockpiles which were useless.

You are being generous here.

The problem with the CIA analogy here is that the CIA didn't say "Let's go to war with Iraq", the CIA was asked to present information that would help the W Admin make a case for a war against Iraq.

Yes that, plus information CIA got was bullshit, And we now know that publicly revealed "evidence about russian hackers is bullshit as well."
See the analogy?

The Trump Admin is not asking for any info on Russian involvement in the US election.

They are not asking for any info on collusion. Probably because they know there were none.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He did, he had some stockpiles which were useless.

You are being generous here.

The problem with the CIA analogy here is that the CIA didn't say "Let's go to war with Iraq", the CIA was asked to present information that would help the W Admin make a case for a war against Iraq.

Yes that, plus information CIA got was bullshit,

Not really. After the initial CIA briefing with the W Admin on the WMD "threat", the W Admin was very displeased with how unconvincing the evidence was.

And we now know that publicly revealed "evidence about russian hackers is bullshit as well."
See the analogy?

No analogy there.

The Trump Admin is not asking for any info on Russian involvement in the US election.

They are not asking for any info on collusion. Probably because they know there were none.

Yup, that is why you fire people, because you are worried they will find nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yup, that is why you fire people, because you are worried they will find nothing.

I suppose it could be that he's not even slightly guilty of collusion, but worried that they'd find something else. One of his other crimes might have come to light.

Which makes it perfectly reasonable to brag to Russians that he's fired the FBI director, so the pressures off (on that whole thing about emoluments and the suddenly-approved licenses in China).

 

[barbos]

You are being generous here.

The problem with the CIA analogy here is that the CIA didn't say "Let's go to war with Iraq", the CIA was asked to present information that would help the W Admin make a case for a war against Iraq.

Yes that, plus information CIA got was bullshit,

Not really. After the initial CIA briefing with the W Admin on the WMD "threat", the W Admin was very displeased with how unconvincing the evidence was.

And we now know that publicly revealed "evidence about russian hackers is bullshit as well."
See the analogy?

No analogy there.

Maybe CIA/FBI/NSA are displeased now too. So yes, there is an analogy. In both cases evidence which they eventually put out is flat out bullshit.

The Trump Admin is not asking for any info on Russian involvement in the US election.

They are not asking for any info on collusion. Probably because they know there were none.

Yup, that is why you fire people, because you are worried they will find nothing.

Normally you would be right, but it's a 7 year old POTUS we have here.