Trump Launches New Communications Platform months after Twitter, Facebook Ban

[Velo Vol]

I'm not on twitter but with all of his tweets reposted here I don't remember any that advocated violence. Maybe they're out there I just don't recall any.

This just mysteriously happened.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Hilary literally wrote a book on it.

Hillary Clinton also conceded defeat in the 2016 Presidential election the day after the election, with what was a gracious speech, by any standard.

Things Hillary Clinton didn't do after election day:

1) She didn't call the Secretaries of State in battleground states she had narrowly lost, and encourage them to "go find" the number of votes she had lost by... and then get mad when they refused to do it.

2) She didn't try to persuade the Vice President at the time (would have been Biden) to cast aside electoral college votes from disputed states during the roll call for certification.... as a matter of fact, she didn't even dispute any states following the election, even though her margins of defeat in Michigan and Wisconsin were comparable to Trump's in Georgia and Arizona.

3) She didn't boycott the inauguration of her opponent.

... and I don't like Hillary Clinton. I never really have. I'm not defending her for the things she did do that reflect sour grapes, such as blaming Comey. She did handle her defeat better than Trump has so far. I think most people would agree with that.

 

[RockyTop85]

Maybe I'm confusing a couple of things, but I thought they were going after him again.

The state did at one point on a new set of facts then dropped it and the person picked it back up. I’m not sure whether there was anything screwy about that process.

 

[Grand Vol]

The state did at one point on a new set of facts then dropped it and the person picked it back up. I’m not sure whether there was anything screwy about that process.

That's probably it. I thought I had read they changed the laws in Colorado and went after him again. Again, I was probably mistaking it with something else.

 

[utvolpj]

Well, he was president, and Lebron isn't. Seems like that makes a difference?

Does it? Do they hold other world leaders to the same standard?

 

[hog88]

This just mysteriously happened.

Got a tweet with him advocating violence? If you do great, if not then my point stands.

 

[Grand Vol]

Why do you expect them to behave any better than anybody else in America? You guys aren't fair to the left. The left isn't fair to you. This is America.

Can you please point to a conservative social media platform that bans people on their political affiliation?

TIA.

 

[n_huffhines]

Can you please point to a conservative social media platform that bans people on their political affiliation?

TIA.

Why? I guess this is the only aspect of America where fairness matters?

I'm not going to lie, it's pretty fun to watch Republicans ceaselessly cry about everything being so unfair to them. These are the same people who mocked and jeered 3rd party peeps for complaining about debate rules being unfair. We literally can't even get in on the most important conversations for elections, and you guys are mad that bad behavior can get your Twitter rights revoked.

:* (

 

[utvolpj]

Can you please point to a conservative social media platform that bans people on their political affiliation?

TIA.

Pretty sure parler was

 

[BowlBrother85]

As a threshold matter, these are private companies. The frequent allusion to the First Amendment or to its principles as applying to social media is simply incorrect.

FB and Twitter could ban him simply because they don't like his hairstyle. He can launch his own platform and get people to buy stuff off of it. I mean, these products all did so well:


View attachment 372493


View attachment 372494

View attachment 372495


View attachment 372496

View attachment 372498

For several months, I kept seeing claims that Trump didn't really need Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, and that he would start a "blog" which would get the same amount of traffic as he had on those platforms.

... and I didn't know that there had been a Trump cologne. My guess is, that it was similar to the medicine cabinet odor, you could sense coming from your grandparents.

 

[lawgator1]

This just mysteriously happened.

Its so weird. Pence was the darling of the right, especially the religious right. And but for a few swift moves by the Secret Service there were people in that Trump mob that might well have executed him. Or at least taken him into some kind of twilight zone detention.

Yet the right as a whole continues to back Trump and even at the expense of Pence. Pence's last remarks on this were so tortured. He looked like a prisoner in North Korea forced to give propaganda, but trying to slide in a few words of "Don't believe it!"

 

[RockyTop85]

That's probably it. I thought I had read they changed the laws in Colorado and went after him again. Again, I was probably mistaking it with something else.

Changing the law would make sense after the scotus decision.

FWIW, from a legal perspective, I’m fully on this Phillips’s side. I don’t agree with him in terms of his interpretation of the Christian faith, but that’s his choice, not the government’s. His business involves first amendment expression and that’s the only service he withheld. So it’s just between him and his community and the remedy is through the market, not the government.

 

[Velo Vol]

Does it? Do they hold other world leaders to the same standard?

Other than possibly the pope, I'd say he's in a class by himself. They're also American companies, catering to the American market. So naturally more vested in America than Nigeria.

 

[LouderVol]

Hillary Clinton also conceded defeat in the 2016 Presidential election the day after the election, with what was a gracious speech, by any standard.

Things Hillary Clinton didn't do after election day:

1) She didn't call the Secretaries of State in battleground states she had narrowly lost, and encourage them to "go find" the number of votes she had lost by... and then get mad when they refused to do it.

2) She didn't try to persuade the Vice President at the time (would have been Biden) to cast aside electoral college votes from disputed states during the role call for certification.... as a matter of fact, she didn't even dispute any states following the election, even though her margins of defeat in Michigan and Wisconsin were comparable to Trump's in Georgia and Arizona.

3) She didn't boycott the inauguration of her opponent.

... and I don't like Hillary Clinton. I never really have. I'm not defending her for the things she did do that reflect sour grapes, such as blaming Comey. She did handle her defeat better than Trump has so far. I think most people would agree with that.

Trump tried to get pence to over turn the electors?

I have seen that for many of the 1/6ers. But never seen a quote from Trump on it. Granted I havent gone looking so idk.

Didnt the Georgia phone call thing turn out to be some highly edited recording, that with context showed Trump wasnt trying to get him to find more votes?

I will give you the boycott. Childish at worst, not on the scale of writing a book.

Can you back up/refute the other two? Cause right now I am still taking Hilary having the worse response. But I will change my mind if shown otherwise. @me if needed.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump tried to get pence to over turn the electors?

No, but that isn't what I said. I said that Trump tried to get Pence to "cast aside electoral college votes from disputed states during the roll call for certification,"... and since January 6th, Trump has continued to be critical of Pence for not doing so. Trump has even said that Pence "lacked the courage to do the right thing," by not disregarding votes from electors who had been lawfully selected.

Didnt the Georgia phone call thing turn out to be some highly edited recording, that with context showed Trump wasnt trying to get him to find more votes?

I have listened to the call on YouTube, and I don't see how there can be any room for confusion as to what Trump wanted Brad Raffensperger to do, and the conversation is so long that I don't see much need for additional context either. Trump chooses his words carefully, and he has an imprecise manner of speaking, but in this instance, he is trying to persuade Raffensperger to help him overturn the outcome of Georgia. Coming from someone who was both the sitting president, and a candidate in that election Trump was discussing with Raffensperger, it was inappropriate for Trump to even make that call.

I will give you the boycott. Childish at worst, not on the scale of writing a book.

Give me a break. At the end of their careers, politicians often write books to whine about things. Hillary whined about Comey and Russian fake news on social media. I'm sure that there will eventually be a book from Trump as well... and just like Hillary Clinton, he will whine about losing the election and he will make excuses for why it happened. Just like Hillary, he won't place any of the blame for the loss on himself. I highly doubt that Trump will ever even admit that he lost. He will probably stick with the narrative that he actually won the 2020 Presidential election "by a landslide", but insist that it was stolen from him.

 

[NCFisher]

I'm posting the top 10) and of course, @NCFisher.
Once again, here it is:

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

That is speculation, unverifiable since the alleged original platform was not published: PolitiFact - Did Trump campaign soften platform language to benefit Russia?
But let's say Manafort did request toning the language down; so? To what end? Trump still oversaw the sale of Javelins to Ukraine every year of the administration. Further, the U.S. requirement was that the missiles must be stored in the West but:
"But while Washington urges Kyiv to use the Javelins only for defensive purposes and requires that the weapons be stored in a secure facility away from the conflict, there are no geographic restrictions on the actual deployment of the missiles, U.S. officials said, which means that Ukrainian forces can transport, distribute and use them at any time."

“Javelins are defensive weapons and the United States expects Ukraine to deploy them responsibly and strategically when needed for defensive purposes,” said Pentagon spokesperson Mike Howard." See? An actual source, not some anonymous "top" or "senior" "official" we have to accept MSNBC's word for.
Can Ukraine deploy U.S.-made weapons against the Russians?

Prediction: Biden will copy Trump's plan on Ukraine/Russia, or revert to the passive Obama path since he's "continuing O's work with O's team".

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses. Macron also wanted Russia invited to the G7 meeting table. Obama wanted Russia in the WTO. Tensions with Russia were the highest since the Cold War when Trump entered office, and he sought to normalize relations. Despite you falling for every Trump/Russia meme, there are no dossiers of super-secret dirt that Vlad is holding over him. You'll see a much more sober Biden in office than the prior four years of Dem hysteria; shite is just...different when you're holding the reins and your opponent has nukes, too.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.
"For all these reasons, the Obama administration concluded that, despite divergent views on international order, Moscow could still be a potential (junior) partner on areas of mutual interest. This set of beliefs proved incredibly sticky despite Russian actions that should have set off alarm bells." Don’t rehabilitate Obama on Russia

"The Obama administration has proposed a new agreement on Syria to the Russian government that would deepen military cooperation between the two countries against some terrorists in exchange for Russia getting the Assad regime to stop bombing U.S.-supported rebels." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8b2e2a-3e3f-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

Obama championed, literally, Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization since entering the WH.

Why did Obama do Putin's bidding???​

Biden doesn't think that Vlad knew of the Colonial Pipeline. If we're to use pre-Biden Dems ruler, wouldn't Putin just have to know about an operation of this size? It's impossible he didn't authorize, right?
And why did he waive sanctions on Russian pipeline company even while crippling our own? - Biden under fire after waiving sanctions on Russian gas pipeline firm What does Putin have on Biden!!????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My! - how Democrats sober up when they're in the WH.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office.

In Sept. 2016 with allegations of Russian meddling, Obama takes decisive action talks:
“We’ve had problems with cyberintrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past,” Mr. Obama said.

But he suggested that he didn’t want to retaliate.

“Our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms races in the past, but rather to start instituting some norms so that everybody’s acting responsibly,” Mr. Obama said. “What we cannot do is have a situation in which suddenly this becomes the wild, wild West, where countries that have significant cybercapacity start engaging in unhealthy competition or conflict through these means.”
----------------------------
"According to former CIA director John Brennan, who served in that post under Barack Obama, even after Obama had been apprised that Russia was conducting cyber-warfare against the United States, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.”

Brennan said Obama was afraid that if America retaliated, Russia would increase their cyber-warfare against the United States. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” Brennan Admits Obama Refused to Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Against U.S."

----------------- Why did he do Putin's bidding??????? --------------​

Obama was aware of Russia hacking in 2014, at minimum. Dutch Report Reveals Obama Administration Knew About Russian Hacking in Real Time
2020 meddling was benign, media trolling with no infrastructure or campaign hacks; remember, "most securest election ever"? So, WTH are you talking about besides another Russian under your bed? In 2018, and every year of the Trump era, numerous sanctions and expulsions were levied against Russia Brookings details 52 of them. On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia
.
5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

You just had Russia collusion hung around your neck for two years. Atop that is the 2017 ICA which was never a consensus of the intel community and - we found when DNI Ratcliffe declassified in 2020 - in part rests upon Chris Steele's Russian propaganda. Then, they tack on a special counsel despite knowing in Jan 2017 - as both the IG and AG stated - they had no case.

If I were Trump in 2018, knowing I was the object of CIA, FBI, and DOJ zealotry paid for by the DNC/Clinton - and it all being HOAX - I'd have a hard time believing anything intel and FBI were saying. And so would you.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.
Rubbish; sanctions remained on Deripaska. And on those companies until his holdings dropped from 70% to 45%. The EU and some domestic corporations were substantially being damaged by the sanctions, and petitioned U.S. Treasury to roll them back: sanctions.PolitiFact - Trump wants to lift sanctions related to a Russian oligarch. Here’s why How Rusal escaped the noose of U.S. sanctions

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

Perhaps you could articulate the pros and cons of continuing a policy putting us in direct conflict with a NATO ally, continuing the decades long practice of making promises to Kurds (some of them terrorist forces themselves inside Turkey) we'll never keep, and getting drawn into Syria's war (which we never should have been involved in) after Obama ceded it to Russia anyway - then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a point.

Obama backing off his red line (which Trump enforced) was a key boost to Putin, Assad, Iran. His flippancy was a "key boost, golden opportunity" for ISIS - the Junior Varsity he wisecracked - then watched them swell from less than 1000 to tens of thousands and control 35K square miles of beheading, immolating glory to Allah! When Trump took office, ISIS controlled about 23K square miles. When he pulled troops, that had been reduced to about FIFTY square miles. He campaigned on bringing troops home and not getting into wars.

Recall, the military objective was to destroy the JV. Turkey is unlikely to allow an ISIS reconstitution like Obama ignored.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS. We should have NEVER been involved in Syria. Assad was one of the most popular regional leaders, and had majority support through the conflict. Assad is fighting an ACTUAL insurrection in case Democrats would like to know what one looks like. But the man-child in the WH thought Assad should resign, and ended up prolonging the civil war. As Chuck Schumer would say "Die, erectionists, die!"

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." That seems to have been Trump's objective, however. The EU has 100M more people and economy about as large as the U.S. We should order all troops out of Europe and force them to fund their own defense adequately. Two dozen RINOs can GF themselves. See - Two Things Can Be True at the Same Time (again).

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.

I don't like how he handled it; just admit our security was breached and be done with it. There is no reason for him to trust the same people who cast him as a Russian asset for five years, but he should have listened to Pompeo, who's been a hella' good SoS.

This is a continual cycle of cyber war games. We'll see if Biden does anything differently. So far, he hasn't.

A few other times Obama Did Putin's Bidding: refusing to arm Ukraine, backing out on missile defense systems to NATO allies Poland and CZR, doing nothing to hit back at the ongoing 2016 election interference. Even before his election and commenting on the Russia-Georgia conflict: "That does not comport with the Olympic ideal" - a concern he quickly subdued as president while pursuing a 'restart' even as he chronically underestimated Russia, apparently viewing them as a 1980's security concern. Crimea. Ukraine. He knew as early as 2008 that Russia had been violating terms of the 1987 treaty but was undeterred by that, pursuing his own START treaty as well as reducing U.S. nukes by 1/3rd.

What did Putin have on Obama, anyway - ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

What I've demonstrated is that absent objectivity and logic, one can literally paint any president into a corner as a foreign asset or puppet, as was done to Trump. It's "thick" people like you, rabid true believers, that not only don't care about a well-considered argument but outright ignore contrary evidence or logical examination.

 

[Grand Vol]

Pretty sure parler was

I see some articles from June of last year, but nothing verified.

 

[BowlBrother85]

10 Times That Donald Trump Was Either Soft On Russia, or Did Putin's Bidding.

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified in November of 2019 that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

That is speculation, unverifiable since the alleged original platform was not published: PolitiFact - Did Trump campaign soften platform language to benefit Russia?
But let's say Manafort did request toning the language down; so? To what end? Trump still oversaw the sale of Javelins to Ukraine every year of the administration. Further, the U.S. requirement was that the missiles must be stored in the West but:
"But while Washington urges Kyiv to use the Javelins only for defensive purposes and requires that the weapons be stored in a secure facility away from the conflict, there are no geographic restrictions on the actual deployment of the missiles, U.S. officials said, which means that Ukrainian forces can transport, distribute and use them at any time."

“Javelins are defensive weapons and the United States expects Ukraine to deploy them responsibly and strategically when needed for defensive purposes,” said Pentagon spokesperson Mike Howard." See? An actual source, not some anonymous "top" or "senior" "official" we have to accept MSNBC's word for.
Can Ukraine deploy U.S.-made weapons against the Russians?

Prediction: Biden will copy Trump's plan on Ukraine/Russia, or revert to the passive Obama path since he's "continuing O's work with O's team".

2) Trump repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after intelligence has continued to pile up concerning their cyber attacks against the DNC and American-based businesses. Macron also wanted Russia invited to the G7 meeting table. Obama wanted Russia in the WTO. Tensions with Russia were the highest since the Cold War when Trump entered office, and he sought to normalize relations. Despite you falling for every Trump/Russia meme, there are no dossiers of super-secret dirt that Vlad is holding over him. You'll see a much more sober Biden in office than the prior four years of Dem hysteria; shite is just...different when you're holding the reins and your opponent has nukes, too.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting with G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.
"For all these reasons, the Obama administration concluded that, despite divergent views on international order, Moscow could still be a potential (junior) partner on areas of mutual interest. This set of beliefs proved incredibly sticky despite Russian actions that should have set off alarm bells." Don’t rehabilitate Obama on Russia

"The Obama administration has proposed a new agreement on Syria to the Russian government that would deepen military cooperation between the two countries against some terrorists in exchange for Russia getting the Assad regime to stop bombing U.S.-supported rebels." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8b2e2a-3e3f-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

Obama championed, literally, Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization since entering the WH.

Why did Obama do Putin's bidding???​

Biden doesn't think that Vlad knew of the Colonial Pipeline. If we're to use pre-Biden Dems ruler, wouldn't Putin just have to know about an operation of this size? It's impossible he didn't authorize, right?
And why did he waive sanctions on Russian pipeline company even while crippling our own? - Biden under fire after waiving sanctions on Russian gas pipeline firm What does Putin have on Biden!!????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My! - how Democrats sober up when they're in the WH.

4) Trump refused to impose new Russian sanctions despite a law passed almost unanimously by the US Congress over election hacking. In January of 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that Congress had passed a law allowing the President to do so. Those new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia's defense and intelligence sectors. Congress passed a bill in August of 2017, almost unanimously, that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and for their aggression in east Ukraine. Because the bill had passed with a veto-proof majority, Trump had no choice but to sign it into law, but he branded the bill "seriously flawed". Although the bill did allow for sanctions to be delayed or waived, any inaction would have to come with evidence presented to Congress that Russia was making progress in cutting back on cyber meddling. However, with further intrusions into the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the SolarWinds attack, it is apparent that no such progress was ever made while Donald Trump was the President of the United States... and no such evidence was ever presented to Congress as to why these additional sanctions shouldn't be imposed. As it turned out, they were never imposed while Trump was in office.

In Sept. 2016 with allegations of Russian meddling, Obama takes decisive action talks:
“We’ve had problems with cyberintrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past,” Mr. Obama said.

But he suggested that he didn’t want to retaliate.

“Our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms races in the past, but rather to start instituting some norms so that everybody’s acting responsibly,” Mr. Obama said. “What we cannot do is have a situation in which suddenly this becomes the wild, wild West, where countries that have significant cybercapacity start engaging in unhealthy competition or conflict through these means.”
----------------------------
"According to former CIA director John Brennan, who served in that post under Barack Obama, even after Obama had been apprised that Russia was conducting cyber-warfare against the United States, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.”

Brennan said Obama was afraid that if America retaliated, Russia would increase their cyber-warfare against the United States. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” Brennan Admits Obama Refused to Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Against U.S."

----------------- Why did he do Putin's bidding??????? --------------​

Obama was aware of Russia hacking in 2014, at minimum. Dutch Report Reveals Obama Administration Knew About Russian Hacking in Real Time
2020 meddling was benign, media trolling with no infrastructure or campaign hacks; remember, "most securest election ever"? So, WTH are you talking about besides another Russian under your bed? In 2018, and every year of the Trump era, numerous sanctions and expulsions were levied against Russia Brookings details 52 of them. On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia
.
5) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but Trump has sided with Putin's denial since the Helsinki Summit, so that appears to have been another lie.

You just had Russia collusion hung around your neck for two years. Atop that is the 2017 ICA which was never a consensus of the intel community and - we found when DNI Ratcliffe declassified in 2020 - in part rests upon Chris Steele's Russian propaganda. Then, they tack on a special counsel despite knowing in Jan 2017 - as both the IG and AG stated - they had no case.

If I were Trump in 2018, knowing I was the object of CIA, FBI, and DOJ zealotry paid for by the DNC/Clinton - and it all being HOAX - I'd have a hard time believing anything intel and FBI were saying. And so would you.

6) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin confidant, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bi-partisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic Party resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. However, Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.
Rubbish; sanctions remained on Deripaska. And on those companies until his holdings dropped from 70% to 45%. The EU and some domestic corporations were substantially being damaged by the sanctions, and petitioned U.S. Treasury to roll them back: sanctions.PolitiFact - Trump wants to lift sanctions related to a Russian oligarch. Here’s why How Rusal escaped the noose of U.S. sanctions

7) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

Perhaps you could articulate the pros and cons of continuing a policy putting us in direct conflict with a NATO ally, continuing the decades long practice of making promises to Kurds (some of them terrorist forces themselves inside Turkey) we'll never keep, and getting drawn into Syria's war (which we never should have been involved in) after Obama ceded it to Russia anyway - then maybe, just maybe, you'll have a point.

Obama backing off his red line (which Trump enforced) was a key boost to Putin, Assad, Iran. His flippancy was a "key boost, golden opportunity" for ISIS - the Junior Varsity he wisecracked - then watched them swell from less than 1000 to tens of thousands and control 35K square miles of beheading, immolating glory to Allah! When Trump took office, ISIS controlled about 23K square miles. When he pulled troops, that had been reduced to about FIFTY square miles. He campaigned on bringing troops home and not getting into wars.

Recall, the military objective was to destroy the JV. Turkey is unlikely to allow an ISIS reconstitution like Obama ignored.

8) Trump consistently repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, those comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS. We should have NEVER been involved in Syria. Assad was one of the most popular regional leaders, and had majority support through the conflict. Assad is fighting an ACTUAL insurrection in case Democrats would like to know what one looks like. But the man-child in the WH thought Assad should resign, and ended up prolonging the civil war. As Chuck Schumer would say "Die, erectionists, die!"

9) Trump ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it would compromise European-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." That seems to have been Trump's objective, however. The EU has 100M more people and economy about as large as the U.S. We should order all troops out of Europe and force them to fund their own defense adequately. Two dozen RINOs can GF themselves. See - Two Things Can Be True at the Same Time (again).

10) Finally, this past December, Trump tweeted that the SolarWinds cyber attack was being overblown by the media. He also said that China was more likely to have been responsible for it. Around this same time, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said in an interview that Russia was "pretty clearly" behind the attack which hit the State Department, among many other agencies and businesses. Attorney General, William Barr, sided with Pompeo while saying that the SolarWinds hack "certainly appears to be the Russians." Per the Associated Press, White House officials had prepared a statement calling Russia "the main actor" in the SolarWinds attack, but Trump ordered them not to release it.

I don't like how he handled it; just admit our security was breached and be done with it. There is no reason for him to trust the same people who cast him as a Russian asset for five years, but he should have listened to Pompeo, who's been a hella' good SoS.

This is a continual cycle of cyber war games. We'll see if Biden does anything differently. So far, he hasn't.

A few other times Obama Did Putin's Bidding: refusing to arm Ukraine, backing out on missile defense systems to NATO allies Poland and CZR, doing nothing to hit back at the ongoing 2016 election interference. Even before his election and commenting on the Russia-Georgia conflict: "That does not comport with the Olympic ideal" - a concern he quickly subdued as president while pursuing a 'restart' even as he chronically underestimated Russia, apparently viewing them as a 1980's security concern. Crimea. Ukraine. He knew as early as 2008 that Russia had been violating terms of the 1987 treaty but was undeterred by that, pursuing his own START treaty as well as reducing U.S. nukes by 1/3rd.

What did Putin have on Obama, anyway - ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

What I've demonstrated is that absent objectivity and logic, one can literally paint any president into a corner as a foreign asset or puppet, as was done to Trump. It's "thick" people like you, rabid true believers, that not only don't care about a well-considered argument but outright ignore contrary evidence or logical examination.

What you mostly demonstrated are some very weak examples of "what-about-ism"... most of which really don't apply.... and of course, you have demonstrated a willingness to defend the indefensible. Trump's policies and rhetoric were consistently favorable to Russia. Trump was an enabler of Russian aggression and a Putin apologist.

 

[Orangeslice13]

What you mostly demonstrated are some very weak examples of "what-about-ism"... most of which really don't apply.... and of course, you have demonstrated a willingness to defend the indefensible. Trump's policies and rhetoric were consistently favorable to Russia. Trump was an enabler of Russian aggression and a Putin apologist.

Pipeline.

 

[VolStrom]

What you mostly demonstrated are some very weak examples of "what-about-ism"... most of which really don't apply.... and of course, you have demonstrated a willingness to defend the indefensible. Trump's policies and rhetoric were consistently favorable to Russia. Trump was an enabler of Russian aggression and a Putin apologist.

We have the weakest president since the country was formed. Congrats dems on selling out our country to communists.

 

[LouderVol]

No, but that isn't what I said. I said that Trump tried to get Pence to "cast aside electoral college votes from disputed states during the roll call for certification,"... and since January 6th, Trump has continued to be critical of Pence for not doing so. Trump has even said that Pence "lacked the courage to do the right thing," by not disregarding votes from electors who had been lawfully selected.


I have listened to the call on YouTube, and I don't see how there can be any room for confusion as to what Trump wanted Brad Raffensperger to do, and the conversation is so long that I don't see much need for additional context either. Trump chooses his words carefully, and he has an imprecise manner of speaking, but in this instance, he is trying to persuade Raffensperger to help him overturn the outcome of Georgia. Coming from someone who was both the sitting president, and a candidate in that election Trump was discussing with Raffensperger, it was inappropriate for Trump to even make that call.


Give me a break. At the end of their careers, politicians often write books to whine about things. Hillary whined about Comey and Russian fake news on social media. I'm sure that there will eventually be a book from Trump as well... and just like Hillary Clinton, he will whine about losing the election and he will make excuses for why it happened. Just like Hillary, he won't place any of the blame for the loss on himself. I highly doubt that Trump will ever even admit that he lost. He will probably stick with the narrative that he actually won the 2020 Presidential election "by a landslide", but insist that it was stolen from him.

so no to Pence.

a maybe on the GA thing, as a resident here I have to say a lot of the national reports don't match local stuff, and local here is fairly liberal. imprecise speaking is all politicians do. when was the last time you ever heard a hard deadline, or metric/standard? so thats not a knock on Trump specifically.

and when Trump writes a book, using talk to text, I will put him at Hilary's level. I can call out both sides and keep things relatively honest. hilary was supposed to be the most qualified person ever, but seeing her reaction has me maybe thinking that wasn't an honest statement.

 

[BowlBrother85]

so no to Pence.

a maybe on the GA thing, as a resident here I have to say a lot of the national reports don't match local stuff, and local here is fairly liberal. imprecise speaking is all politicians do. when was the last time you ever heard a hard deadline, or metric/standard? so thats not a knock on Trump specifically.

and when Trump writes a book, using talk to text, I will put him at Hilary's level. I can call out both sides and keep things relatively honest. hilary was supposed to be the most qualified person ever, but seeing her reaction has me maybe thinking that wasn't an honest statement.

I didn't say, what you previously attributed to me saying in regards to Vice President, Mike Pence. Are you getting that? Donald Trump did publicly plead with Pence, on Twitter and during his speech at the January 6th rally in front of the White House, to not count electoral college votes from the states that representatives for the 2020 Trump Campaign had been challenging in court. Trump also said that it was merely "a lack of courage" that prevented Pence from doing what Trump wanted done. Pence had no such authority under the United States Constitution to set aside electoral votes, however... on top of the fact that it would have marked an epic conflict of interest, considering that Pence's name was also on the ballot, and those electors had been lawfully chosen as I previously said.

That call between Donald Trump and Brad Raffensperger should not have even taken place. I think it speaks for itself... but that is beside the point anyway. Trump had no business making that call to begin with.

I don't like Hillary Clinton... say what you want about her. She certainly whined a lot, but she didn't go to the extremes that Trump has gone to, in order to overturn the outcome.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

We have the weakest president since the country was formed. Congrats dems on selling out our country to communists.

Stand by for the encore of this duo.

 

[NCFisher]

What you mostly demonstrated are some very weak examples of "what-about-ism"... most of which really don't apply.... and of course, you have demonstrated a willingness to defend the indefensible. Trump's policies and rhetoric were consistently favorable to Russia. Trump was an enabler of Russian aggression and a Putin apologist.

If you think direct responses to your claims and drawing comparison to Obama and Biden is 'whataboutism', you should stop using terms you don't understand.

 

[BowlBrother85]

We have the weakest president since the country was formed. Congrats dems on selling out our country to communists.

Of course, I disagree... Trump was very weak in the face of Russian aggression, and it lasted until the very end. He wouldn't even address the SolarWinds hack except to say that it wasn't a big deal, and that China had done it anyway. He refused to hear an intelligence briefing on it. He simply didn't want to hear any negative reports concerning Russian aggression against the United States. From an American President, that is bizarre.

If Donald Trump had been the President of the United States in September of 1983, when a Russian fighter shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, he wouldn't have called it "a massacre", or "a crime against humanity that must never be forgotten," as Ronald Reagan did. Hell, no. Trump would have downplayed the whole thing by saying that only one American Congressman had actually been killed... and the plane was probably shot down by China, anyway.