• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House says there’s no need for new Russia sanctions

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/01/561427876/how-russia-used-facebook-to-organize-two-sets-of-protesters

Over a year ago, Russian trolls organized two separate movements; one pro-Texan independence, the other pro-Muslim. Tell me, do you think these two sides saw eye to eye a lot?

I don't know if the Russians directly colluded with Trump. They probably preferred his victory over Clinton because Trump's comments about NATO, since the Russians hate NATO, but I don't know if they actually colluded. And frankly, that's not what concerns me the most about all this.

The Russians directly set up online groups and used social media for one primary purpose; spread dissent and social unrest across America. They specifically encouraged conflicting groups to challenge one another through ads, organized protests, and specifically sought to aggravate American political issues to further divide us. They wanted to pit Liberal vs conservative, blue collar vs white collar, and numerous other groups, all for the purpose of sowing disunity and wreaking American trust in our democratic institutions. Meanwhile, the Russian government has cracked down on it's own dissident movements and undermined opposition groups within Russia. They've weakened our political infrastructure by encouraging hyper-partisanship while simultaneously removing their own domestic challengers.

The Russians are trying to play us against one another so American involvement in the world stage is limited. They want to undermine NATO, our role in the Middle East, and compromise our global influence.

America's not perfect. We've had our fair share of **** ups and mistakes. But I think the US can be a force for good in this world. We're not going to do any of that, however, if we spend all the time accusing each other of harming America. Today in our political atmosphere, it's normal to accuse a political opposite that they're intentionally undermining America for their own gain. At one point in time, this was an accusation analogous to treason and false statements about it were enough to ruin careers and livelihoods, but now it's common political rhetoric. We're loosing our competitive edge because we're too busy tearing ourselves apart over immigration, spending, taxes, race relations, and a host of other issues. The term compromise has become synonymous with "weakness" in some circles. It's ridiculous.

Wow. That's very refreshing and I agree 100%. Don't you think the left are feeding right into Putin's wishes by being the resistance against Trump? But, the fact is, we aren't going to stop Russia from doing this by sanctions or by expelling their diplomats or by closing their spy compounds. Sure, we can give them a bloody nose but it doesn't stop them from doing it. It is on us to figure out a way to stop it by passing social media laws, finding a way to stop hackers, and any other means. And, I must say that we are hypocrites because America for centuries has tried to influence elections all over the globe and now we are crying foul because Russia is doing it to us. And, a side note, North Korea is a huge global problem and we could use the Russians on board with us in order to resolve the situation. Since we aren't going to stop their election meddling with sanctions anyway, why not work with them to stop North Korea's development of missiles and nuclear weapons and use the other means I mentioned to thwart Russia's election meddling?
 
Wow. That's very refreshing and I agree 100%. Don't you think the left are feeding right into Putin's wishes by being the resistance against Trump? But, the fact is, we aren't going to stop Russia from doing this by sanctions or by expelling their diplomats or by closing their spy compounds. Sure, we can give them a bloody nose but it doesn't stop them from doing it. It is on us to figure out a way to stop it by passing social media laws, finding a way to stop hackers, and any other means. And, I must say that we are hypocrites because America for centuries has tried to influence elections all over the globe and now we are crying foul because Russia is doing it to us. And, a side note, North Korea is a huge global problem and we could use the Russians on board with us in order to resolve the situation. Since we aren't going to stop their election meddling with sanctions anyway, why not work with them to stop North Korea's development of missiles and nuclear weapons and use the other means I mentioned to thwart Russia's election meddling?

What laws could you pass that would not be in violation of the 1st Amendment?
 
What laws could you pass that would not be in violation of the 1st Amendment?

Well, there are laws on the books about hate crimes and the left wants to pass laws on hate speech. This is the hypocrisy of the left. They don't give a **** about the first amendment, or the second amendment, when it suits their agenda. I already mentioned that we could actually ban all political advertising (we did this with cigarette ads) unless the source could be verified as legitimate. None of this changes the fact that sanctions aren't going to stop Russia from what they are doing, just as they never gave Crimea back after sanctions and, we could use Russia's help on the North Korea situation instead of antagonizing them over something where the onus is on us to actually stop their meddling and the hacking done by not only them, but China, North Korea, and criminals as well. There is a very huge problem here far bigger than election meddling and if we don't find a way to stop it, we are going to be in a very dire situation at some point.
 
Well, there are laws on the books about hate crimes and the left wants to pass laws on hate speech. This is the hypocrisy of the left. They don't give a **** about the first amendment, or the second amendment, when it suits their agenda. I already mentioned that we could actually ban all political advertising (we did this with cigarette ads) unless the source could be verified as legitimate.

Hate speech laws will never be passed on a federal level. And if any get passed on a state level they'll be shot down by SCOTUS.

And no, we can't actually ban political advertising. That is most definitely against the 1st Amendment and is the primary reason the 1st Amendments free speech clause exists. And I'd like to see your evidence that cigarette ads were banned based on political advertisements.
 
Hate speech laws will never be passed on a federal level. And if any get passed on a state level they'll be shot down by SCOTUS.

And no, we can't actually ban political advertising. That is most definitely against the 1st Amendment and is the primary reason the 1st Amendments free speech clause exists. And I'd like to see your evidence that cigarette ads were banned based on political advertisements.

The cigarette thing could have been worded better. Of course I didn't mean it had anything to do with politics. But, one could argue that we infringed on the first amendment rights of cigarette companies (or of their customers) by refusing their advertising. Does the first amendment cover other countries advertising in the US? I never said it would be easy. I'm just saying that the left wants to infringe on the first amendment rights of hate groups so if they could do that then we could ban political advertising linked to foreign countries. The left is naive if they think we can get Russia to stop merely by throwing sanctions on them. Sure, we could hurt them but we will not stop them, just as gun control laws will not stop gun violence.
 
Statistics which were manipulated by including things that had never before been included. Previous statistics did not count "returns". IE: People that were turned back as they were crossing the border. Under Obama they started listing them as "removals" because the policy in how they were "returned" changed. Instead of simply making them return across the border as previous Presidents had done they started documenting them and then busing them back. Doing this increased the number of "deportations" by adding another group that had never previously been used in deportation numbers to an already existing group. As such the numbers didn't actually change. What changed was how groups were categorized. In the end, comparing Obama's deportation statistics to past Presidents deportation statistics is not accurate unless you counted the "returns" in those statistics of past Presidents. Which afaik has not been done by anyone. They just take the talking point and run with it without acknowledging the differences in how things were counted/categorized. For most, not all, doing so would no doubt not fit their agenda.

Edit note: I'm not saying that the change in policy was wrong, just that comparing the statistics of the Obama Admin should not be compared to past Presidential deportation statistics.



The case with DACA though wasn't just about simply not deporting them. If Obama had JUST done that I wouldn't say a thing about it. The problem is that he went beyond simply not deporting them in order to save resources for the more criminally inclined illegal aliens. He actually gave them permits. Which is in direct violation of current legislated law that was signed by a President.

A long-winded, yet very flimsy argument all to hang on to a "whataboutism", which by definition is a flimsy argument. Let's do the math: Flimsy * Flimsy = "that dog don't hunt"....

net-net, your argument is so out there it is not worthy of my counter-argument. Carry on.
 
A long-winded, yet very flimsy argument all to hang on to a "whataboutism", which by definition is a flimsy argument. Let's do the math: Flimsy * Flimsy = "that dog don't hunt"....

net-net, your argument is so out there it is not worthy of my counter-argument. Carry on.

So out there? People are claiming that Trump is refusing to enforce the law. So comparing their reaction to how they reacted to Obama's blatant refusal to fully enforce immigration law is quite valid. The sad part is that no one has yet to answer my main questions: "what does the law have to say in regards to these secondary sanctions? Were they supposed to be implemented no matter what? Or was there discretion allowed?" Can YOU answer those questions?

By the by, the first part of that post was just in response to your erroneous claim that Obama was the "Deporter in Chief" as he was nicknamed. The last part was to show the resemblance between what people are claiming of Trump and Obama's factual refusal to enforce the law as written.

And its not my fault that you can't put forth a counter argument. Because despite your claim, you don't have one as everything I said in regards to the statistics and Obama's refusal to enforce the law was factual.
 
Back
Top Bottom