Trump reluctantly signs bill that blocks him from lifting sanctions on Russia
49 replies, posted
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/02/trump-signs-bill-imposing-new-sanctions-on-russia-but-issues-a-statement-with-concerns/[/url]
[quote]President Trump has signed a bill imposing new sanctions on Russia, ending immediate hopes of a reset of U.S. relations with the Kremlin and marking a defeat for his administration, which had expressed concerns that the legislation infringed upon executive power.
A White House officials said that the president signed the measure on Wednesday morning, nearly a week after it was passed by the Senate with a veto-proof majority. And he intends to issue a signing statement, which will highlight his concerns with it.[/quote]
I just want the ATF sanctions to fuck-off.
I want my damn SKSs and cheap nugget food! :cry:
Time to leak the pee tapes
Wow, his first major piece of legislation signed and he doesn't even make a big deal celebrating it. Imagine signing it with a line of Democrat and Republican senators behind him. What a missed opportunity.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52532321]Wow, his first major piece of legislation signed and he doesn't even make a big deal celebrating it. Imagine signing it with a line of Democrat and Republican senators behind him. What a missed opportunity.[/QUOTE]
He will be delivering his signing statement tonight flanked by a bipartisan group of politicians from both United Russia and the LDPR
I see the divorced parents finally agreed on something.
[QUOTE=Gbps;52532384]I see the divorced parents finally agreed on something.[/QUOTE]
This and the new FBI director.
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
And this title is very misleading, it's imposing new sanctions, not blocking trump from removing sanctions. And what made him reluctant? Just use the wapo article title.
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
Actually, upon further reading I found this. [QUOTE]In addition to adding sanctions, the bill requires congressional review for any actions the administration might seek to take to lift sanctions in the future.[/QUOTE]
But it still doesn't block him from doing anything, he just needs congressional approval.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52532485]And this title is very misleading, it's imposing new sanctions, not blocking trump from removing sanctions.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Washington Post]In addition to adding sanctions, the bill requires congressional review for any actions the administration might seek to take to lift sanctions in the future.[/quote]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52532485]And what made him reluctant?[/QUOTE]
[quote=Washington Post]In a statement outlining his concerns, Trump called the bill “seriously flawed,”[/quote]
[quote=Washington Post]Trump said that he signed the bill, despite his reservations, for the sake of “national unity.”[/quote]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52532485]
But it still doesn't block him from doing anything, he just needs congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
Except Congress will never support a lift on sanctions at this rate, so it's effectively the same.
His signing statement implies he's Challenging this in court soon.
Lawyers said he doesn't have a good case.
In fact they say this opens up the court limiting powers for president.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52532526]His signing statement implies he's Challenging this in court soon.
Lawyers said he doesn't have a good case.
In fact they say this opens up the court limiting powers for president.[/QUOTE]
good, the language for him to remove sanctions is only part of the original sanctions authority given by congress, in this case they explicitly prevent him from unilateral action
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
omg his statement "i built a billion dollar company so im better than the entire state department or anyone in washington..."
no you cuck, you took a hundred million dollar company and made it a billion dollar company, something compound interest would have done on its own. also you can't even get our allies to agree to a deal with you, how in the fuck will you get our enemies to do so?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Cuck" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Just to specify: banned for using "cuck," not for BEING a "cuck." Don't need that stupid shit here." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52532485]Actually, upon further reading I found this.
But it still doesn't block him from doing anything, he just needs congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, any congressman who votes for lifting sanctions on Russia at this point will be shooting both themselves and their party in the foot. I guarantee you no Dem would vote for it, and most Republicans were never very keen on Russia in the first place.
This might be a little bit off-topic, but I can't see anybody talking about this on T_D.
So do you guys think this will piss off his supporters? I see lots of people here supporting Trump just because [i]he says it like it is[/i] and he is pro-Russian, so I'm just wondering.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52532485]This and the new FBI director.
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
And this title is very misleading, it's imposing new sanctions, not blocking trump from removing sanctions. And what made him reluctant? Just use the wapo article title.
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
Actually, upon further reading I found this.
But it still doesn't block him from doing anything, he just needs congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
I think the biggest legally geopoltical reason to be reluctant about those sanctions, is because the USA's allies in the EU aren't liking the added sanctions on Russia. Especially Germany's Merkel was not happy about sanctioning Russia more, as it could cause Gazprom to halt the very lucrative contracts they have with Germany right now. Gazprom is the most important natural gas importer for Germany. Without them, they will have to look for contracts that aren't anywhere as lucrative as the Gazprom one they have right now. But hey, the media said that Merkel was the new ''leader of the free world'' only a few months ago, before the G20 at Hamburg showed that she doesn't have any pull over any real world power right now, let alone over her own country seeing how out of hand the far-left riots in Hamburg did get. Let's see if Merkel decides to go through with her threat to sanction the USA if Gazprom pulls out, and how the mainstream media will react to it in that case. Will the mainstream media accuse Merkel then of being a Russian puppet, or will they let that slide then? Or will Merkel and Germany just take it, seeing as they don't have anywhere near much leverage over Trump's America as they would have liked?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52532672]People don't support Trump because he is pro-russia, people are pro-russia because Trump is and told them to be.[/QUOTE]
I was actually talking about Czech people being pro-Russia and therefore they support Trump here.
People here aren't like that because Trump told them to. People here are pro-Russia mostly because of all the conspiracy theories they believe in.
My brother is one of those people and he's spreading around all the stuff he finds on Czech alternatives of InfoWars.
Again I reiterate this bill is no-where as positive as it appears to be due to its sanctions on Iran and the fact that the United States and the EU didn't negotiate on it. Russia needs to be sanctioned to be sure, and Europe needs to rely much, much less on Russian natural gas and fuel. But it seems like these sanctions are going too fast.
This is a good thing. Right? I mean of course Trump can't do most of anything unless Congress approves of it, but this just doubles that point?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52532742]Again I reiterate this bill is no-where as positive as it appears to be due to its sanctions on Iran and the fact that the United States and the EU didn't negotiate on it. Russia needs to be sanctioned to be sure, and Europe needs to rely much, much less on Russian natural gas and fuel. But it seems like these sanctions are going too fast.[/QUOTE]
At least it does away with the fiction that the Democrats do care anything more than a rat's ass for the EU's concerns. The EU just have to fall in line again, like always. So much for that whole 'Merkel is the new leader of the free world' narrative that was in a few months ago. That was as far from reality as it could have gotten. All the EU has is a fair bit of economical power. No wonder that they are that scared of new economical sanctions, the EU has seen far better economical days, about the last thing they need right now, is to fill up a newly opened economical hole they will have to fill up themselves if Russia decides to make Gazprom pull out of Europe. Geopolitically seen, the EU is nowhere as stable as the brass in Brussels would delude themselves as.
[QUOTE=Jordax;52532779][B]At least it does away with the fiction that the Democrats do care anything more than a rat's ass for the EU's concerns. The EU just have to fall in line again, like always. [/B]So much for that whole 'Merkel is the new leader of the free world' narrative that was in a few months ago. That was as far from reality as it could have gotten. All the EU has is a fair bit of economical power. No wonder that they are that scared of new economical sanctions, the EU has seen far better economical days, about the last thing they need right now, is to fill up a newly opened economical hole they will have to fill up themselves if Russia decides to make Gazprom pull out of Europe. Geopolitically seen, the EU is nowhere as stable as the brass in Brussels would delude themselves as.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they should "fall in line", rather than being complacent in retaining infrastructure dependent on the financial support of a hostile dictatorship.
[QUOTE=bitches;52532794]Maybe they should "fall in line", rather than being complacent in retaining infrastructure dependent on the financial support of a hostile dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and maybe you can stop funding Saudi Arabia.
And apologise to all the countries' you've intervened in and fucked up.
Christ, there's even significant factions in several EU countries who do want to become less dependent on countries like Russia. Short term however it's a little difficult to do that, so I'd suggest maybe ya'll in America stop being arrogant for a sec and work with your allies?
Or maybe you'll continue this way and wake up one day shocked why we're no longer allies.
EDIT: fuck it man, do you even remember the reputation of the person you're replying to? lol
[QUOTE=bitches;52532794]Maybe they should "fall in line", rather than being complacent in retaining infrastructure dependent on the financial support of a hostile dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
I would have liked to, but the brass in Brussels decided to make another spectacularly awful deal with another dictatorship a few years ago, and just lets every single time they fuck with EU citizens slide other than go to the media and say how it isn't nice of Turkey and Erdogan to hold EU citizens in custody without trail purely for not liking Erdogan personally. Officially, the EU likes to pretend that Turkey is still that decent business partner from a few years ago, yet it is more looking like a battered wife relationship now. Sort of sums up the EU's geopolitical situation right now too at that. 'I'm still in charge', says heads of an union where more and more things start spiralling out of their control in ways not previously thought possible.
[I]"No puppet... No puppet... you're the puppet"[/I]
[media]https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/892786015793852416[/media]
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52532806]Yeah, and maybe you can stop funding Saudi Arabia.
And apologise to all the countries' you've intervened in and fucked up.
Christ, there's even significant factions in several EU countries who do want to become less dependent on countries like Russia. Short term however it's a little difficult to do that, so I'd suggest maybe ya'll in America stop being arrogant for a sec and work with your allies?
Or maybe you'll continue this way and wake up one day shocked why we're no longer allies.
EDIT: fuck it man, do you even remember the reputation of the person you're replying to? lol[/QUOTE]
yes, I am personally responsible and agree with all of my government's decisions
furthermore, wrongdoings of my government nullify criticisms of other governments
I'm glad we're on the same page
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52532747]This is a good thing. Right? I mean of course Trump can't do most of anything unless Congress approves of it, but this just doubles that point?[/QUOTE]
This also means that the next president can't act unilaterally on it either, republican or democrat.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52532907][I]"No puppet... No puppet... you're the puppet"[/I]
[media]https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/892786015793852416[/media][/QUOTE]
This guy is a DNC elite and not the best source.
[QUOTE=bitches;52532918]yes, I am personally responsible and agree with all of my government's decisions
furthermore, wrongdoings of my government nullify criticisms of other governments
I'm glad we're on the same page[/QUOTE]
OK, I admit I should have used "American government" instead of "you". I apologise for that.
However, it's still very much a "kettle calling the bot black" situation saying the EU should "fall in line" with the American government's actions, when you know very well they've been anything but co-operative or working with the best interests of neither the EU or the rest of the world recently.
It's quite a bit arrogant and not conductive at all to the situation at hand. That, and you basically ignored the rest of my point anyway: that the American government is being arrogant and not working on the EU with on the situation.
Criticise the EU all the way to the bank, but realise in this situation your criticisms seem just that little hypocritical.
Regarding the EU, the bill itself leaves the President with a decent amount of wiggle room about exactly who would be breaching the sanctions and how to go about punishing them. I imagine the State Department should be able to communicate with EU leadership just fine to prevent too much economic instability regarding investment in Russia's energy projects. That said, to be frank, what is Russia going to do? Stop sending Europe it's LNG? They account for a third of their exports. Russia has more to lose from taking the sanctions as well as ending projects like Nord Stream 2 than just taking the sanctions. They know this, which is why their response was kicking out diplomats.
it's never going to get to that point though because the bill gives the President discretion over energy sanctions, and Trump would never throw his EU allies under the bus, right?
[editline]2nd August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52532672]People don't support Trump because he is pro-russia, people are pro-russia because Trump is and told them to be.[/QUOTE]
Russia is also an ideal state for hardcore Trump supporters: An oligarchic kleptocracy ran by a strongman with deep religious and traditional values where opposition figures are assassinated and freedom of speech (including the press) is restricted.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52532937]This also means that the next president can't act unilaterally on it either, republican or democrat.[/QUOTE]
That's bad...?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52533131]OK, I admit I should have used "American government" instead of "you". I apologise for that.
However, it's still very much a "kettle calling the bot black" situation saying the EU should "fall in line" with the American government's actions, when you know very well they've been anything but co-operative or working with the best interests of neither the EU or the rest of the world recently.
It's quite a bit arrogant and not conductive at all to the situation at hand. That, and you basically ignored the rest of my point anyway: that the American government is being arrogant and not working on the EU with on the situation.
Criticise the EU all the way to the bank, but realise in this situation your criticisms seem just that little hypocritical.[/QUOTE]
The language of the bill specifically requires the President to act in coordination with the EU regarding these sanctions, and gives him the discretion not to impose penalties against allied countries.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52533268]The language of the bill specifically requires the President to act in coordination with the EU regarding these sanctions, and gives him the discretion not to impose penalties against allied countries.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know. Now I'm more supportive.
The Iran sanctions are still dumb however.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.