Can any Trump supporter explain this to me?

[forkup]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

 

[K9Buck]

No, I cannot.

 

[BlackSand]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

Because you are attempting to leverage one issue against another entirely different issue.

Not to mention the President should do what he thinks is best.
That doesn't mean he should do what you think would help cover his ass from allegations others have made.

Of course the Congress has considered the fact the Russians meddled in our elections.
President Trump was a candidate in those elections ... President Obama on the other hand knew about Russia's meddling and did nothing ...

I am not really a supporter of President Trump ... But your logic is faulty at its core.
Two separate issues ... And they haven't proven collusion yet so it cannot be assumed to affect President Trump at all.

.

 

[Votto]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

The Hillary campaign colluded with the Ukrainian government as they later came out and publically stated that they feared that Trump was not fit for office.

Should Trump also come out with sanctions against the Ukraine? This is one of the reasons the Russians were trying to support Trump.

I don't know what Hillary offered the Ukraine government. Perhaps she offered her support if the Russians invaded. If so, I just don't know how you could watch Benghazi unfold and ever think that she would have your back.

 

[irosie91]

No, I cannot.

neither can I-----not sufficient data

 

[The VOR]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

He's putin's bitch. That is all you need to know.

 

[forkup]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

Because you are attempting to leverage one issue against another entirely different issue.

Not to mention the President should do what he thinks is best.
That doesn't mean he should do what you think would help cover his ass from allegation others have made.

Of course the Congress has considered the fact the Russians meddled in our elections.
President Trump was a candidate in those elections ... President Obama on the other hand knew about Russia's meddling and did nothing ...

I am not really a supporter of President Trump ... But your logic is faulty at its core.
Two separate issues ... And they haven't proven collusion yet so it cannot be assumed to affect President Trump at all.

.

No they are very much connected. One is the issue that Trump worked with Russia to get elected. The other issue is that Trump is refusing to punish Russia for that interference. Against not just the wishes of congress, but even against his own self interest. How can you separate those issues?

 

[impuretrash]

For the same reason he resisted the warmongers in DC's push for a Syrian invasion.

 

[BlackSand]

No they are very much connected. One is the issue that Trump worked with Russia to get elected. The other issue is that Trump is refusing to punish Russia for that interference. Against not just the wishes of congress, but even against his own self interest. How can you separate those issues?

You haven't proven that Russia helped President Trump get elected.

You are trying to support your idea that they did, and what you think the President should do, with nothing more than conjecture.
The President is not required to do what Congress wants him to do ... Nor is he required to react any certain way because of allegations that have not been proven.

You are connecting dots that are not even on the same page at the moment.
It's not his job to look out for his personal self-interests ... That's what the crooked politicians do.

Your silliness belongs in conspiracy theories.
Thanks for exposing the complete corruption you expect and desire from our politicians.

.

 

[Meathead]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

I think you may be confused as to what Trump's job is and perhapsewaht tthe word "leader"meaans. Apparently Obama had the same problem, which is why he was so unsuccessful.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I was under the impression that the investigation has been concluded. Considering the recent 13 indictments, and the admitting by the investigation team that they found no collusion between Trump and Russia.

Aside from that, for Trump to do anything differently because of an investigation would not be in his best interest and not consistent to governing a country. Besides, would it really help him? If he goes light on them, the media will say that is proof of his ties to Russia. If he deals with them harshly, the media says he is just trying to put on a front, and cover his tracks. Either way, there is no upside for him.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No they are very much connected. One is the issue that Trump worked with Russia to get elected. The other issue is that Trump is refusing to punish Russia for that interference. Against not just the wishes of congress, but even against his own self interest. How can you separate those issues?

You haven't proven that Russia helped President Trump get elected.

You are trying to support your idea that they did, and what you think the President should do, with nothing more than conjecture.
The President is not required to do what Congress wants him to do ... Nor is he required to react any certain way because of allegations that have not been proven.

You are connecting dots that are not even on the same page at the moment.
It's not his job to look out for his personal self-interests ... That's what the crooked politicians do.

Your silliness belongs in conspiracy theories.
Thanks for exposing the complete corruption you expect and desire from our politicians.

.

yep,yep and yep.

 

[BluesLegend]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket.

Do you realize how bat shit crazy you people sound?

 

[forkup]

No they are very much connected. One is the issue that Trump worked with Russia to get elected. The other issue is that Trump is refusing to punish Russia for that interference. Against not just the wishes of congress, but even against his own self interest. How can you separate those issues?

You haven't proven that Russia helped President Trump get elected.

You are trying to support your idea that they did, and what you think the President should do, with nothing more than conjecture.
The President is not required to do what Congress wants him to do ... Nor is he required to react any certain way because of allegations that have not been proven.

You are connecting dots that are not even on the same page at the moment.
It's not his job to look out for his personal self-interests ... That's what the crooked politicians do.

Your silliness belongs in conspiracy theories.
Thanks for exposing the complete corruption you expect and desire from our politicians.

.

I don't need to prove that Trump did. In my original OP I stated clearly that Trump was under investigation, not that he was guilty. And I worded my reply a bit ankwardly, I should have said "One is the issue IF Trump worked with Russia"And that it would be good for him to actually sanction Russia which he didn't. It would also be in the interest of national security since Russia actually doing it is no longer being contested and the intelligence community is saying they will do it again. You saying he has the right to sit on his hands, which I have no problem conceding. The OP was asking you to give a decent reasoning for it. You are somehow trying to say Trump being helped be the Russia government, (again not being contested), should be detached from the sanctions imposed because of that help. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination to have serious questions about this.

 

[forkup]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket.

Do you realize how bat shit crazy you people sound?

So you believe that he is? Glad we're on the same page.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't need to prove that Trump did. In my original OP I stated clearly that Trump was under investigation, not that he was guilty. And I worded my reply a bit ankwardly, I should have said "One is the issue IF Trump worked with Russia"And that it would be good for him to actually sanction Russia which he didn't. It would also be in the interest of national security since Russia actually doing it is no longer being contested and the intelligence community is saying they will do it again. You saying he has the right to sit on his hands, which I have no problem conceding. The OP was asking you to give a decent reasoning for it. You are somehow trying to say Trump being helped be the Russia government, (again not being contested), should be detached from the sanctions imposed because of that help. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination to have serious questions about this.

That's what "conjecture" means ...

.

 

[forkup]

I don't need to prove that Trump did. In my original OP I stated clearly that Trump was under investigation, not that he was guilty. And I worded my reply a bit ankwardly, I should have said "One is the issue IF Trump worked with Russia"And that it would be good for him to actually sanction Russia which he didn't. It would also be in the interest of national security since Russia actually doing it is no longer being contested and the intelligence community is saying they will do it again. You saying he has the right to sit on his hands, which I have no problem conceding. The OP was asking you to give a decent reasoning for it. You are somehow trying to say Trump being helped be the Russia government, (again not being contested), should be detached from the sanctions imposed because of that help. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination to have serious questions about this.

That's what "conjecture" means ...

.

Sure it's conjecture. The problem you have is that you didn't try to answer the question. Give a decent reasoning beyond Quid pro quo, to not impose the sanctions that congress overwhelmingly approved? In a political climate both sides of the aisle agree on something and the president refuses. To make an analogy, if someones wife gets killed and she has a 10 million dollar insurance that the husband took out 2 days before she died. Don't you think the police would seriously consider the husband as a suspect? It doesn't prove he did it but it's highly suspect. The same here, it proves nothing but it does pose serious questions.

 

[BlackSand]

Sure it's conjecture. The problem you have is that you didn't try to answer the question. Give a decent reasoning beyond Quid pro quo, to not impose the sanctions that congress overwhelmingly approved? In a political climate both sides of the aisle agree on something and the president refuses. To make an analogy, if someones wife gets killed and she has a 10 million dollar insurance that the husband took out 2 days before she died. Don't you think the police would seriously consider the husband as a suspect? It doesn't prove he did it but it's highly suspect. The same here, it proves nothing but it does pose serious questions.

Your entire reasoning in asking the question is flawed and based on conjecture.
The question you are asking is akin to asking why President Trump isn't corrupt enough to cover his ass in respects to unproven allegations.

Repeating it is not going to change that ...

.

 

[forkup]

Sure it's conjecture. The problem you have is that you didn't try to answer the question. Give a decent reasoning beyond Quid pro quo, to not impose the sanctions that congress overwhelmingly approved? In a political climate both sides of the aisle agree on something and the president refuses. To make an analogy, if someones wife gets killed and she has a 10 million dollar insurance that the husband took out 2 days before she died. Don't you think the police would seriously consider the husband as a suspect? It doesn't prove he did it but it's highly suspect. The same here, it proves nothing but it does pose serious questions.

Your entire reasoning in asking the question is flawed and based on conjecture.
The question you are asking is akin to asking why President Trump isn't corrupt enough to cover his ass in respects to unproven allegations.

Repeating it is not going to change that ...

.

If my reasoning was purely based on him not imposing sanctions while being politically expedient you might by able to say that. In fact I've given you more then that line of reasoning. I've given you the fact that congress, you know the second branch of government feel that Russia needs to have further sanctions, and I've given you that those sanctions make sense in a national security sense to. You are just answering the first line of reasoning, I suspect because a: That's the only one you can conceivably argue against, and b: It allows you to not have to answer the premise of my post.

 

[mikegriffith1]

People on the right have been very adamant on Trump not being in Russia's pocket. A few weeks ago congress unanimously accepted additional sanctions on Russia. This in the wake of testimony from the intelligence community about not just past election interference of Russia but also in more interference during the next election cycle. When asked the FBI acknowledged that Trump has giving no directives on how to handle this. He also refused to uphold the proposed sanctions. Since the Trump campaign is under investigation for working with Russia it would be in his best interest to come out strongly against Russia. this would at least give him some real time facts to point to, in order to,at least try to deflect the appearance of wrongdoing. In other words he has strong reasons to uphold the sanctions, yet he chooses not to.Can any explain a decent reasoning why anyone shouldn't think this suspicious in the extreme? And not consider this Trump simply refusing to do his job?

I guess you missed the news that Trump's State Department has cost the Russians billions in lost arms deals by pressuring potential customers not to buy Russian arms. I guess you missed the news that Trump has allowed the existing sanctions on Russia to continue. Trump believes that the existing sanctions on Russia are enough for now.

Do you wanna push Russia into a depression? Why punish average citizens for the actions of a few people in the government?