Debunking the Absurd Liberal Lie that Trump Is Pro-Putin or "Soft" on Russia

[mikegriffith1]

The following facts debunk the absurd liberal lie that Trump is doing Putin's bidding, that Trump is pro-Russian, and that Trump is "soft" on Russia, etc.:

* Just a few days ago, Trump officially approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, which of course has outraged Putin and has been condemned by Russian and pro-Russian news outlets. Trump signaled the approval weeks ago. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly refused to sell arms to Ukraine.

Trump Administration Approves New Weapons Sale to Ukraine, Bucking Putin

Trump Approves US Lethal Weapons Sales to Ukraine, Angering Moscow

Trump’s approval of lethal arms to Ukraine is a sideways move to nowhere

Trump Approves Lethal Arms Sales to Ukraine | Geopolitical Monitor

Unlike Obama, Trump Approves Weapons Sale to Ukraine

How quickly liberals forget about Obama's infamous promise to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, caught on video in March 2012, that he could be more "flexible" with Russia "after my election" (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326; Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’).

How quickly liberals also forget that it was Obama who threw away America's missile defense option to get a one-sided nuke deal with Russia, which, coincidentally enough, Obama did after the 2012 presidential election (Romney: Obama stopped missile defense shield 'as a gift to Russia').

How quickly liberals forget that they mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for warning that Russia was our biggest threat. Remember that, liberals? Remember how Obama scoffed at that notion?

* Trump has condemned Russia's conduct in Syria as a "humanitarian disgrace":

TRUMP: I will say, what Russia and what Iran and what Syria have done recently is a humanitarian disgrace. I will tell you that.

We're there for one reason: We're there to get ISIS and get rid of ISIS and go home. We're not there for any other reason. And we've largely accomplished our goal.

But what those three countries have done to people over the last short period of time is a disgrace. (Trump Condemns Russia, Iran For "Humanitarian Disgrace" In Syria)​

See also: Trump blasts Russia's actions in Syria as 'a humanitarian disgrace'

* Trump continues to be harshly critical of the Iran nuclear deal, and in fact a few months ago, he decertified the deal and asked Congress to define new, more realistic trigger points for cancelling the deal altogether. But Russia strongly supports the Iran nuclear deal and has condemned Trump's actions on the matter. (So we see that it is American liberals who are in agreement with Putin.)

Russia condemns Trump's threats to withdraw from Iran nuclear deal

Trump decertifies Iran nuclear deal, imposes 'tough sanctions' on Revolutionary Guard Corps

Trump’s decision to decertify nuclear deal harms US credibility – Iranian FM

* Trump is about to impose higher tariffs on steel and aluminum. When Trump announced his decision, Russia's two top steel companies saw their share prices drop, and one Russian minister said the higher tariff would do "some damage" to Russia. MarketWatch observes that Russia will be among the eight nations hit the hardest by Trump's hike in steel tariffs (Trump steel tariffs to hit these 8 countries the hardest — and China isn’t one of them).

By the way, the AFL-CIO, the federation of America's labor unions, has praised Trump's increase in steel tariffs:

For years, we have called attention to the predatory practices of some steel exporting countries. Such practices hurt working people and cheat companies that produce in the U.S. We applaud the administration's efforts today to fix this problem. Effective enforcement of trade laws, including section 232, is critical to leveling the playing field and ensuring that U.S. steel producers and their employees have a fair shot in the global economy. Secretary Ross, Ambassador Lighthizer and Director Navarro have rightly advocated for these actions despite opposition from the Wall Street wing of the administration. This is a great first step toward addressing trade cheating, and we will continue to work with the administration on rewriting trade rules to benefit working people. (Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Good for Working People | AFL-CIO)​

U.S. Steel has also praised President Trump's hike in steel tariffs and has applauded his earlier tariff hikes on washing machines and solar panels:

We are pleased to see the President's action on products critical to American manufacturing and energy production. We are hopeful the President will similarly use his authority to establish a broad Section 232 remedy targeting steel imports that threaten U.S. national security by undermining our industry, economic competitiveness and the industrial foundation on which our manufacturing sector rests [this is exactly what Trump is doing by raising steel tariffs]. We believe broad and decisive action against the multitude of foreign producers is fundamental to protecting our national security and American jobs.” (https://www.ussteel.com/newsroom/us...riffs-imported-washing-machines-solar-panels; see also U. S. Steel Issues Statement on Department of Commerce Section 232 Report | United States Steel Corporation)​

* Trump continues to enforce every sanction on Russia that he inherited from Obama. In fact, Trump just extended those sanctions for another year.

Trump extends Russia sanctions for another year – White House

* Yes, Trump has not enforced the latest round of Russian sanctions passed by Congress. He feels they are too broad and that the current sanctions are enough. However, Trump is now working on new Russian sanctions, given recent events:

Senior White House officials say the Trump administration is looking at additional sanctions against Russia and is on guard for possible meddling in November’s congressional elections.

Republicans and Democrats have criticized President Donald Trump for not imposing Congress-approved sanctions over 2016 election interference.

The officials said Wednesday the sanctions process moves slowly for legal reasons and cannot react to bad headlines and criticism.

“The process on sanctions is long. It’s arduous. It’s not pretty. But when the evidence is there and we’re ready, we go ahead with the sanctions,” the official said. (Officials: White House Looking at New Sanctions Against Russia)​

Liberals who still dare to attack Trump for not imposing enough sanctions on Russia need to tell us what they said when Obama and his administration were virtually mute when Iran was butchering protesters in the streets and when Obama proceeded to give Iran $150 billion in sanctions relief as part of his disastrous Iran nuclear deal and then added insult to injury by paying ransom money to get Iran to release the American hostages it was holding (instead of insisting on their release as part of the nuke deal).

* Trump's State Department, at his urging and with his approval, has diverted billions of dollars in arms sales away from Russia by persuading potential buyers not to buy Russian arms:

Our discussions, our diplomatic engagements, are sensitive and we don’t talk about them publicly, but we did brief Congress yesterday because it’s important, of course, to keep them updated. I can say publicly, though, that the results of our engagement and our demarches globally, we have been able to turn off potential deals that equal several billion dollars. And that is real success, it’s real money, and it’s real revenue that is not going to the Kremlin and is not going to Russia as part of the intent of this law and the intent of this administration, to remind Russia and remind the Russian Government of the costs of its malign activity, specifically with regard to Ukraine. (Background Briefing on the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) Section 231)​

* In response to Putin's bizarre and provocative press conference a few day sago where he bragged about "invincible" nuclear weapons that could hit America, Trump immediately directed his administration to issue several clear condemnations, starting with his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, speaking in his name to condemn Putin's provocative posturing. That's a lot more than Obama did during the 2009 pro-democracy protests in Iran.

A free Iran would be one of the most momentous events in the past 20 years. Yet, rather than tighten economic sanctions and undermine the regime, Democrats did everything they could to strengthen it. This includes the Obama administration ignoring the uprisings of 2009, releasing Iranian spies, slow-walking and shutting down investigations into Iranian criminality, and paying ransoms. These are political decisions made by a party that seeks to regain power here in the United States. (5 Worst Echo Chamber Talking Points About The Iranian Uprising)​

Unlike Obama, Trump will not be silent on Iran

Donald Trump Reverses Obama Doctrine in Response to Iranian Protests | National Review

White House Reacts President Putin's Nuclear Weapons Announcement

US pushes back on Putin weapon claims - CNNPolitics

US accuses Russia of violating nuclear weapons treaty after Putin boasts of 'unstoppable' missile

If the Russians were really "all for Trump," why did they provide so much dirt on Trump for the Steele dossier? Why did they pay for at least one anti-Trump rally?

Just because Trump has made genuine efforts to improve relations with Russia does not mean he is pro-Putin or pro-Russian. Trump has made it very clear that he is quite willing to condemn Russian misconduct and that he is willing to take actions that anger Russia if he feels they are needed, such as his approval of arms sales to Ukraine, his imposition of higher steel tariffs, and his decertification of the Iran nuclear deal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Come up for air.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Come up for air.

In other words, you have no interest in facts or truth, just partisan propaganda.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.

Why would I treat that with any seriousness? And,,,,lots of words don't make shitty arguments less shitty. Learn that.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.

Uh. . . . Well, rather than scatter facts and sources in several replies, I decided to compile just some of the facts that refute the liberal lie about Trump being pro-Putin, etc., etc., into an OP so as to get them all on the table at once.

Now, would you care to address a single one of the documented facts presented in the OP? How about you start with Trump's approval of a huge arms sale to Ukraine, a move that Obama would never do and that has infuriated Moscow?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The following facts debunk the absurd liberal lie that Trump is doing Putin's bidding, that Trump is pro-Russian, and that Trump is "soft" on Russia, etc.:

* Just a few days ago, Trump officially approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, which of course has outraged Putin and has been condemned by Russian and pro-Russian news outlets. Trump signaled the approval weeks ago. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly refused to sell arms to Ukraine.
.....

I see you got the talking points email a few days later than the other 3 people that made threads on this exact same topic.

The sale of arms to the Ukraine does not make them the equal of the Russian army, Putin is not worried.

But what the sales of these arms to the Ukraine does is strengthen Putin's power at home, a reason to stay in control even longer and add to his powerbase. It also gives Putin an excuse to put more troops, not less, in the Ukraine. And when a few tanks are destroyed it will give him the reason to go in full force. Putin has no problem sacrificing a few of his soldiers to further his plans.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The following facts debunk the absurd liberal lie that Trump is doing Putin's bidding, that Trump is pro-Russian, and that Trump is "soft" on Russia, etc.:

* Just a few days ago, Trump officially approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, which of course has outraged Putin and has been condemned by Russian and pro-Russian news outlets. Trump signaled the approval weeks ago. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly refused to sell arms to Ukraine.
.....

I see you got the talking points email a few days later than the other 3 people that made threads on this exact same topic.

The sale of arms to the Ukraine does not make them the equal of the Russian army, Putin is not worried.

But what the sales of these arms to the Ukraine does is strengthen Putin's power at home, a reason to stay in control even longer and add to his powerbase. It also gives Putin an excuse to put more troops, not less, in the Ukraine. And when a few tanks are destroyed it will give him the reason to go in full force. Putin has no problem sacrificing a few of his soldiers to further his plans.

What a joke. Nice to see you spouting Russian propaganda.

And, gee, if Putin "isn't worried" about the sale, why did Moscow and its news puppets so loudly condemn it?

And if Trump is Putin's puppet, why did he approve any arms sales, much less a big one, to Ukraine? Why the steel tariffs? Why the Iran nuke deal decertification? Why the chasing away of billions of dollars in Russian arms sales? Why?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What a joke. Nice to see you spouting Russian propaganda.

And, gee, if Putin "isn't worried" about the sale, why did Moscow and its news puppets so loudly condemn it?

And if Trump is Putin's puppet, why did he approve any arms sales, much less a big one, to Ukraine? Why the steel tariffs? Why the Iran nuke deal decertification? Why the chasing away of billions of dollars in Russian arms sales? Why?

It is called kabuki theater, look it up.

Watch and see if the sell of arms does not end up resulting in a lot more Russian troops in the Ukraine, which is just what Putin wants and now he has been handed the perfect reason to do so.

 

[edthecynic]

The following facts debunk the absurd liberal lie that Trump is doing Putin's bidding, that Trump is pro-Russian, and that Trump is "soft" on Russia, etc.:

* Just a few days ago, Trump officially approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, which of course has outraged Putin and has been condemned by Russian and pro-Russian news outlets. Trump signaled the approval weeks ago. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly refused to sell arms to Ukraine.

Trump Administration Approves New Weapons Sale to Ukraine, Bucking Putin

Trump Approves US Lethal Weapons Sales to Ukraine, Angering Moscow

Trump’s approval of lethal arms to Ukraine is a sideways move to nowhere

Trump Approves Lethal Arms Sales to Ukraine | Geopolitical Monitor

Unlike Obama, Trump Approves Weapons Sale to Ukraine

How quickly liberals forget about Obama's infamous promise to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, caught on video in March 2012, that he could be more "flexible" with Russia "after my election" (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326; Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’).

How quickly liberals also forget that it was Obama who threw away America's missile defense option to get a one-sided nuke deal with Russia, which, coincidentally enough, Obama did after the 2012 presidential election (Romney: Obama stopped missile defense shield 'as a gift to Russia').

How quickly liberals forget that they mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for warning that Russia was our biggest threat. Remember that, liberals? Remember how Obama scoffed at that notion?

* Trump has condemned Russia's conduct in Syria as a "humanitarian disgrace":

TRUMP: I will say, what Russia and what Iran and what Syria have done recently is a humanitarian disgrace. I will tell you that.

We're there for one reason: We're there to get ISIS and get rid of ISIS and go home. We're not there for any other reason. And we've largely accomplished our goal.

But what those three countries have done to people over the last short period of time is a disgrace. (Trump Condemns Russia, Iran For "Humanitarian Disgrace" In Syria)​

See also: Trump blasts Russia's actions in Syria as 'a humanitarian disgrace'

* Trump continues to be harshly critical of the Iran nuclear deal, and in fact a few months ago, he decertified the deal and asked Congress to define new, more realistic trigger points for cancelling the deal altogether. But Russia strongly supports the Iran nuclear deal and has condemned Trump's actions on the matter. (So we see that it is American liberals who are in agreement with Putin.)

Russia condemns Trump's threats to withdraw from Iran nuclear deal

Trump decertifies Iran nuclear deal, imposes 'tough sanctions' on Revolutionary Guard Corps

Trump’s decision to decertify nuclear deal harms US credibility – Iranian FM

* Trump is about to impose higher tariffs on steel and aluminum. When Trump announced his decision, Russia's two top steel companies saw their share prices drop, and one Russian minister said the higher tariff would do "some damage" to Russia. MarketWatch observes that Russia will be among the eight nations hit the hardest by Trump's hike in steel tariffs (Trump steel tariffs to hit these 8 countries the hardest — and China isn’t one of them).

By the way, the AFL-CIO, the federation of America's labor unions, has praised Trump's increase in steel tariffs:

For years, we have called attention to the predatory practices of some steel exporting countries. Such practices hurt working people and cheat companies that produce in the U.S. We applaud the administration's efforts today to fix this problem. Effective enforcement of trade laws, including section 232, is critical to leveling the playing field and ensuring that U.S. steel producers and their employees have a fair shot in the global economy. Secretary Ross, Ambassador Lighthizer and Director Navarro have rightly advocated for these actions despite opposition from the Wall Street wing of the administration. This is a great first step toward addressing trade cheating, and we will continue to work with the administration on rewriting trade rules to benefit working people. (Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Good for Working People | AFL-CIO)​

U.S. Steel has also praised President Trump's hike in steel tariffs and has applauded his earlier tariff hikes on washing machines and solar panels:

We are pleased to see the President's action on products critical to American manufacturing and energy production. We are hopeful the President will similarly use his authority to establish a broad Section 232 remedy targeting steel imports that threaten U.S. national security by undermining our industry, economic competitiveness and the industrial foundation on which our manufacturing sector rests [this is exactly what Trump is doing by raising steel tariffs]. We believe broad and decisive action against the multitude of foreign producers is fundamental to protecting our national security and American jobs.” (https://www.ussteel.com/newsroom/us...riffs-imported-washing-machines-solar-panels; see also U. S. Steel Issues Statement on Department of Commerce Section 232 Report | United States Steel Corporation)​

* Trump continues to enforce every sanction on Russia that he inherited from Obama. In fact, Trump just extended those sanctions for another year.

Trump extends Russia sanctions for another year – White House

* Yes, Trump has not enforced the latest round of Russian sanctions passed by Congress. He feels they are too broad and that the current sanctions are enough. However, Trump is now working on new Russian sanctions, given recent events:

Senior White House officials say the Trump administration is looking at additional sanctions against Russia and is on guard for possible meddling in November’s congressional elections.

Republicans and Democrats have criticized President Donald Trump for not imposing Congress-approved sanctions over 2016 election interference.

The officials said Wednesday the sanctions process moves slowly for legal reasons and cannot react to bad headlines and criticism.

“The process on sanctions is long. It’s arduous. It’s not pretty. But when the evidence is there and we’re ready, we go ahead with the sanctions,” the official said. (Officials: White House Looking at New Sanctions Against Russia)​

Liberals who still dare to attack Trump for not imposing enough sanctions on Russia need to tell us what they said when Obama and his administration were virtually mute when Iran was butchering protesters in the streets and when Obama proceeded to give Iran $150 billion in sanctions relief as part of his disastrous Iran nuclear deal and then added insult to injury by paying ransom money to get Iran to release the American hostages it was holding (instead of insisting on their release as part of the nuke deal).

* Trump's State Department, at his urging and with his approval, has diverted billions of dollars in arms sales away from Russia by persuading potential buyers not to buy Russian arms:

Our discussions, our diplomatic engagements, are sensitive and we don’t talk about them publicly, but we did brief Congress yesterday because it’s important, of course, to keep them updated. I can say publicly, though, that the results of our engagement and our demarches globally, we have been able to turn off potential deals that equal several billion dollars. And that is real success, it’s real money, and it’s real revenue that is not going to the Kremlin and is not going to Russia as part of the intent of this law and the intent of this administration, to remind Russia and remind the Russian Government of the costs of its malign activity, specifically with regard to Ukraine. (Background Briefing on the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) Section 231)​

* In response to Putin's bizarre and provocative press conference a few day sago where he bragged about "invincible" nuclear weapons that could hit America, Trump immediately directed his administration to issue several clear condemnations, starting with his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, speaking in his name to condemn Putin's provocative posturing. That's a lot more than Obama did during the 2009 pro-democracy protests in Iran.

A free Iran would be one of the most momentous events in the past 20 years. Yet, rather than tighten economic sanctions and undermine the regime, Democrats did everything they could to strengthen it. This includes the Obama administration ignoring the uprisings of 2009, releasing Iranian spies, slow-walking and shutting down investigations into Iranian criminality, and paying ransoms. These are political decisions made by a party that seeks to regain power here in the United States. (5 Worst Echo Chamber Talking Points About The Iranian Uprising)​

Unlike Obama, Trump will not be silent on Iran

Donald Trump Reverses Obama Doctrine in Response to Iranian Protests | National Review

White House Reacts President Putin's Nuclear Weapons Announcement

US pushes back on Putin weapon claims - CNNPolitics

US accuses Russia of violating nuclear weapons treaty after Putin boasts of 'unstoppable' missile

If the Russians were really "all for Trump," why did they provide so much dirt on Trump for the Steele dossier? Why did they pay for at least one anti-Trump rally?

Just because Trump has made genuine efforts to improve relations with Russia does not mean he is pro-Putin or pro-Russian. Trump has made it very clear that he is quite willing to condemn Russian misconduct and that he is willing to take actions that anger Russia if he feels they are needed, such as his approval of arms sales to Ukraine, his imposition of higher steel tariffs, and his decertification of the Iran nuclear deal.

Flake News!

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

 

[dudmuck]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.

Uh. . . . Well, rather than scatter facts and sources in several replies, I decided to compile just some of the facts that refute the liberal lie about Trump being pro-Putin, etc., etc., into an OP so as to get them all on the table at once.

Now, would you care to address a single one of the documented facts presented in the OP? How about you start with Trump's approval of a huge arms sale to Ukraine, a move that Obama would never do and that has infuriated Moscow?

Russia no doubt has kompromat on Trump.
And no response to russia's new nuclear threat.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have no interest in arguing the obvious with a dummy.......again. You don't like the way this particular discussion has gone in other threads, so you started this one.
Why would I treat that with any seriousness?

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

What Putin says about a given subject is immaterial. What he does matters. That's because he is a wily, dishonest prick of a dictator. Your moron believed Putin when he said he had nothing to do with trying to fuck with our election. Your moron chose to mock the US intelligence community instead of Putin.

Now....Trump,,,,famously....says what he thinks. That's why he got elected, right? He is a bad ass who fears nobody and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or us
You'd think he'd at least have a nasty nickname for Putin. No?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Humm, maybe because every point is a documented, known fact? Unlike your baseless claims about Russian collusion, there is hard, known evidence that Trump is anything but a Putin pawn or a pro-Russian tool.

So, again, how about you deal with just the first point in the OP, i.e., that Trump recently approved a sizable arms sale to Ukraine, much to the anger and disapproval of Moscow? When Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine, Putin and his underlings screamed far and wide against it, arguing that it would be "destabilizing," "provocative," etc. Just look at Moscow's reaction to the arms sale announcements. Clearly, Putin & Co. are ticked off by it. Now, gee, what's going on here if Trump is in Putin's hip pocket?

Or, perhaps you could explain Trump's imposition of higher steel tariffs, which has been condemned by Moscow and over which Moscow has said it's considering "retaliation." What gives?

And then, perhaps you could explain Obama's video-taped promise to Medvedev to be more "flexible" after the 2012 election, if he won, hey? Gee, what a coincidence: After that election, Obama then rammed through a one-sided nuke deal with Russia that flushed away our missile defense option, much to Moscow's delight.

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

What Putin says about a given subject is immaterial. What he does matters. That's because he is a wily, dishonest prick of a dictator. Your moron believed Putin when he said he had nothing to do with trying to fuck with our election. Your moron chose to mock the US intelligence community instead of Putin.

Now....Trump,,,,famously....says what he thinks. That's why he got elected, right? He is a bad ass who fears nobody and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or us
You'd think he'd at least have a nasty nickname for Putin. No?

You guys mocked the intel community for years under Bush. Remember? Trump mocked SOME in the intel community, i.e., those who were leaking this Russian-collusion nonsense.

If Trump ever does give Putin a nickname, you guys will attack him for it and will claim that giving a nickname to the leader of a major power is inappropriate.

Giving a nickname to a nutjob like Kim Jung Un is one thing. Giving one to the leader of a major power is quite another thing.

Now, are you going to explain why Trump has taken important ACTIONS that Russia opposes, if he's supposedly a Putin tool?

 

[miketx]

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

What Putin says about a given subject is immaterial. What he does matters. That's because he is a wily, dishonest prick of a dictator. Your moron believed Putin when he said he had nothing to do with trying to fuck with our election. Your moron chose to mock the US intelligence community instead of Putin.

Now....Trump,,,,famously....says what he thinks. That's why he got elected, right? He is a bad ass who fears nobody and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or us
You'd think he'd at least have a nasty nickname for Putin. No?

You guys mocked the intel community for years under Bush. Remember? Trump mocked SOME in the intel community, i.e., those who were leaking this Russian-collusion nonsense.

If Trump ever does give Putin a nickname, you guys will attack him for it and will claim that giving a nickname to the leader of a major power is inappropriate.

Now, are you going to explain why Trump has taken these ACTIONS that Russia opposes?

Giving a nickname to a nutjob like Kim Jung Un is one thing. Giving one to the leader of a major power is quite another thing.

The sooner you learn that these shill trolls do not care for truth, the better you will be. Not one of them can discuss a topic that shows trump as anything other than a pedophile rapist and stick to the topic.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Already dealt with.

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

What is Trump's insulting nickname for Putin?

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

What Putin says about a given subject is immaterial. What he does matters. That's because he is a wily, dishonest prick of a dictator. Your moron believed Putin when he said he had nothing to do with trying to fuck with our election. Your moron chose to mock the US intelligence community instead of Putin.

Now....Trump,,,,famously....says what he thinks. That's why he got elected, right? He is a bad ass who fears nobody and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or us
You'd think he'd at least have a nasty nickname for Putin. No?

You guys mocked the intel community for years under Bush. Remember? Trump mocked SOME in the intel community, i.e., those who were leaking this Russian-collusion nonsense.

If Trump ever does give Putin a nickname, you guys will attack him for it and will claim that giving a nickname to the leader of a major power is inappropriate.

Giving a nickname to a nutjob like Kim Jung Un is one thing. Giving one to the leader of a major power is quite another thing.

Nope. I never mocked the intel community. Neither did President Bush nor President Obama. Next dopey deflection.......

A president giving an insulting nickname to ANYONE is inappropriate. Fool.

 

[LoneLaugher]

But not explained. Making the laughable claim that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale does not explain why Moscow has denounced the sale, nor does it explain why Putin & Co. screamed so loudly against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering selling arms to Ukraine.

LOL! So that's your standard?! No nickname = being pro-Putin?!

You know, you guys whined and mocked when Trump nicknamed Kim Jung Un and tweeted about him, but when Trump chooses a more diplomatic response to Putin's nuclear boasting, you whine and complain that he's not tweeting about the matter. Which is it gonna be?

Yeah. That is Trump's standard, dummy. He gives people nasty nicknames. That is as deep as the moron gets. You are full bore in support of a moron.

Still waiting for you to substantively deal with a single point in the OP.

Again, the argument that Putin isn't worried about the arms sale to Ukraine is laughable in light of Moscow's reaction to the announcements of the sale, not to mention in light of the fact that Putin and his cronies screamed against arms sales to Ukraine when Obama was considering them.

This is a primo example of your version of "dealing with" an argument: You make some absurd, laughable claim and then act like you've won the argument.

What Putin says about a given subject is immaterial. What he does matters. That's because he is a wily, dishonest prick of a dictator. Your moron believed Putin when he said he had nothing to do with trying to fuck with our election. Your moron chose to mock the US intelligence community instead of Putin.

Now....Trump,,,,famously....says what he thinks. That's why he got elected, right? He is a bad ass who fears nobody and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him or us
You'd think he'd at least have a nasty nickname for Putin. No?

You guys mocked the intel community for years under Bush. Remember? Trump mocked SOME in the intel community, i.e., those who were leaking this Russian-collusion nonsense.

If Trump ever does give Putin a nickname, you guys will attack him for it and will claim that giving a nickname to the leader of a major power is inappropriate.

Now, are you going to explain why Trump has taken these ACTIONS that Russia opposes?

Giving a nickname to a nutjob like Kim Jung Un is one thing. Giving one to the leader of a major power is quite another thing.

The sooner you learn that these shill trolls do not care for truth, the better you will be. Not one of them can discuss a topic that shows trump as anything other than a pedophile rapist and stick to the topic.

I have never said that Trump is a pedophile rapist. Next lie......