Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Didn't Trump's actions in the Helsinki press conference border on treason?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (15241points) 3 months ago

Everyone would have been calling for Obama’s head if he had acted like that.
Hilary would have simply been shot.
So why does ole orange hair get away with it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

102 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

From separating children from parents with no real way to reunite them.
To starting trade wars that will cost countless jobs.
To cuddling up to US advisories .
To gutting the ACA and replacing it with nothing.
And having zero tact and class in front of the queen.
Insulting and bad mouthing most if not all the US allies leaders.
What the hell is next?

LadyMarissa's avatar

In my opinion, YES it did!!! According to tonight’s news, Putin will be visiting the US in the not too distant future to continue those secretive talks.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And I suppose it will be just Trump and Putin,and a translator?
That alone smells far worse than Monica’s dress ever did.

Yellowdog's avatar

Obama’s open mike comments to Medvedev (to tell Putin that he will have “more flexibility” after the 2012 election)—well, THAT showed real, actual conspiracy.

Or, what about giving 150 BILLION to terrorists ? (Iranian Mullahs)—to build a nuclear arsenal?

You are also omitting the rather significant fact that all of the interference with the 2016 elections happened under Obama / Comey /Clapper—who vehemently denied there was any interference—about the only action taken was, Obama said he told them to ‘cut it out.’

Trump’s talking to Putin is not treasonous. It is not Pearl Harbor. It is not kristalnacht. It is not 9/11. It is meeting with a foreign leader of a country that has been our adversary. China is far more a threat to us and no one bats an eye.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Did you even watch the press conference??^^

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@yellowdog are you even listening ? ?

Trump security Head found out about the visit, from a tweet while being interviewed by NBC. Flatfooted dumb move by trump. Will he give the nuclear code to KGB
for a trip to a Jr Miss contest in Russia with dressing room visitation !

MrGrimm888's avatar

No. We are not at war with Russia…

stanleybmanly's avatar

He hasn’t “gotten away with it.” What he has done is demonstrate (once again) what is to come. This time, anyone watching can draw but one of 2 conclusions. The man is either a hopeless fool or selling out the country. But that’s not the worst of it. It is almost beyond belief that he is deliberately selling out the country, because he is so blatantly out in the open about it. Clueless idiot as the wulf reminded me is not a crime. I’m sure we’re all relieved by the news. No one has the wherewithall to lock the man awayGive a

rojo's avatar

Seriously @Yellowdog ?

Bullshit point No. 1 – Obama pointed out to Congress that the Russians were interfering. In August 2016, Obama received a briefing that said Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump win the election. He had his aides assess the safety of the American voting system, he had the head of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson work with states to shore up security, and he had John Brennan contact the head of the Russia security agency. But Obama did not make the information public, as Democrats on the Hill wanted. Republicans argued it should stay under wraps. According to then-Vice President Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell questioned the findings themselves, and others argued it would only help Russians to release it, or make it look like the Obama administration was stepping into the election to directly oppose Donald Trump. Obama was between a rock and a hard place here and he, unfortunately, decided to go the route the Republicans wanted.

Bullshit point number two – Comey WAS investigating the Russian involvement. Trump fired him for it (well that and refusing to kiss his ass) remember because he was? At no point did he, or anyone else you have named, state that it was not happening.

Bullshit point no. 3 – Clapper was instrumental in the Russian investigation (as was Sally Yates) Trump got rid of both of them. As for not knowing, again, none of them denied Russian interference. Here is a short quote from Clappers testimony before congress: “Last year, the intelligence community conducted an exhaustive review of Russian interference into our presidential election process resulting in a special intelligence community assessment or ICA as we call it. I’m here today to provide whatever information I can now as a private citizen on how the intelligence community conducted its analysis, came up with its findings, and communicated them to the Obama administration, to the Trump transition team, to the Congress and in unclassified form to the American public.”
The information was there, the information was passed on, the information was buried by the Republicans in Congress until after the election. And, please note, that the “Trump transition team” also received the information. The same information the Trump continues to deny.

I will agree with you that Trumps talk with Putin was not treasonous, at least as far as we know since he went out of his way to make sure nobody was privy to that discussion.. His subsequent press briefing afterwards certainly bordered on treason and, if it were done by a Democrat you can damned well be sure there would be screaming for his head right now from the Republicans but, since he is one of them, not a peep about treason. Although, there are quite a few who are rightfully pissed at him.

I will also agree that China is probably a bigger threat than Russia at this time but, dude, Trump tops all as the bigliest threat to our government, country and way of life.

ScienceChick's avatar

@Yellowdog seems to get his news from conspiracy websites.

flutherother's avatar

Trump seemed to have his own personal agenda in Helsinki and he ignored the opinions of the US State Department, his own intelligence services and most of the western world. We want good relations with Russia but not on any terms. Putin jailed the main opposition leader in Russia just before the country held elections, he has invaded Crimea and Ukraine and is threatening Eastern Europe. He has used the nerve agent novichok on British soil against his opponents and he has attempted to undermine the democratic process in many western countries most notable in the United States. America needs a leader who can stand up to Putin and assert western values. At the moment we don’t have such a leader and Putin is going to take full advantage.

This may not technically be treason as defined by the US constitution but clearly Trump is not fit to be president.

rojo's avatar

I know a large percentage of Trump supporters do not believe in evolution but their own thoughts and actions are a textbook example of the process.

First: There were no meetings with the Russians.

Which became: There were meetings with the Russians but they just forgot them.

Next: There were discussions but no collusion with the Russians.

Then: Who cares if there was collusion with the Russians.

Finally this week: It is Obamas fault for not stopping the meetings with the Russians.

And the next step is: “Войдите в линию для вашей порции супа товарищ”.

Yellowdog's avatar

Basically, everything you said in rebuttal was about the conspiracy to clear Hillary Clinton of actual felonies and then frame Donald Trump for conspiring with Russia.

It doesn’t work.

How could Russia have pulled off Hillary winning the popular vote and Donald winning the electoral? If Russia did this, wouldn’t Donald have won the popular vote, where the machines were actually hacked?

Clapper, Comey, Strzok, and Brennan all have tainted bias and records of corruption in what they were doing. It is doubtful that any of them will face prison time.

Just because you SAY something treasonous was going on, or someone else tells you that, doesn’t make it so. But what people actually do, and what gets them fired by their own agencies, might be considered conspiratorial, especially if we have documentation of their words and actions.

kritiper's avatar

What Trump did did more than border on complete ignorance, stupidity. If it were treason, he would have given important info to the Russians, and Trump is too stupid to know anything that important.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That is THE question. How the hell is he getting away with ALL of it?? It’s like there is some evil force field surrounding him, shielding him from any consequences.

Yellowdog's avatar

Or, maybe you have distorted information on what is happening.

When people, even masses of hysteria, create their own reality, that does not make it actual reality. What is going on now is one for the books. Its massive, group hysteria.

It happens when someone lies, and someone believes it, and adds to it, and then the media and other groups go wild with it.

The first lie when Trump won was that the Russians did it, although just the day before we were told that was impossible. The first lie when Trump entered office was that he removed a bust of MLK from the Oval Office. The nation went hysterical and it wasn’t even true.

The nation, particularly the left, even Hillary, was screaming for the firing of Comey. Even Rosenstein demanded it. Trump appeased them, then the narrative chanced—180 degrees on a dime. It was obstruction.

I get a feeling that something is going on on a very fundamental psychological level here, because none of it is rational. And it makes you more and more frustrated that Trump is somehow ‘getting away’ with something—something supposedly as bad as Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust or 9/11—when nothing at all is happening.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You really near to clean those rose colored glasses,they are covered by fright wing poop.

seawulf575's avatar

I guess I don’t understand your definition of treason. What, specifically, did President Trump do that was treasonous? Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see a thing that I would have classified that way. Now, if you want to go off the opinion the liberal media passes as news, I might see you getting upset. But honestly, there really was nothing. The problem I see is that the liberal media throws out innuendo and supposition, then tries to treat it as fact, then wants action based on their made up facts. So maybe you need to specify what, EXACTLY, was the action(s) that was treasonous.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Uh when he totally sided with Putin,throwing all US agencies doing the investigation under the bus.
When meeting with Putin alone,one or two other of your people should have been there.
But I guess we should let this one be and let Trump get back to real business caging toddlers, and alienating allies.

seawulf575's avatar

@Rojo you have some flaws going on.
Bullshit point No. 1 – Obama claimed to have indications of Russian efforts to interfere with our election. He also made the public statement that after carefully evaluating the efforts, it was determined that no real impact was seen. The results of the election would accurately reflect the will of the American people. Suddenly Hillary lost and the Dems started screaming about Russian interference throwing the election to Trump. Here’s the thing…no one has EVER identified what exactly the Russian interference was and how much impact it actually had on the election. Hacking the DNC servers? If that is true, then why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI computer forensics people ever see the servers? Why did they destroy them so no one could ever see them except their own pet evaluators? Obama was not in a hard spot going the way the Repubs wanted to go…there was just nothing there.
Bullshit point No. 2 – Comey was not fired because he was investigating the Russian interference. He was fired on the recommendation of the FBI (Rosenstein). He was fired for having heavy bias in the Hillary email scandal and creating the “intent” portion of the law to give her a way out of prosecution.
Bullshit point No. 3 – Clapper and Yates were not fired because of some nefarious reason. They were fired because they were actively working against the sitting president. If I were elected and appointees from the previous administration were bucking me at every turn and leaking allegations to the press, I would fire them too.
I think the problem is as I stated previously. Much of what the arguments against President Trump are is nothing more than allegation and innuendo. The stated reasons for actions are rejected out of hand and innuendo is thrown in. Just as with the Russian Collusion fiasco, there is not one shred of evidence to support the innuendo.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think I’m starting to understand how Trump is getting away with his bullshit, that no other person could.

seawulf575's avatar

@squeeky
Throwing US agencies “under the bus” for pursuing a wasteful investigation? He has done that publicly before. He is consistent. And in my opinion, he has a point. Mueller has wasted what…$30M and a year and a half to prove that there is nothing to the Trump/Russia allegations? None of the indictments he has come up with have done anything but prove it is a witch hunt. His last couple of rounds were indictments that should have been turned over normal law enforcement agencies, not the costly special prosecutor. It’s a joke and needs to be made fun of. It is not Treason. As for talking to Putin alone…so what? He spoke with the Queen of England privately too. Is that treason? Our presidents have always had private conversations with the leaders of other countries. Did Putin have an entourage present when he was speaking with Trump? No. That is nothing but innuendo and exaggeration. President Trump has spoken privately with Justin Trudeau. Does that mean that Trudeau should be brought up on charges of treason?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III What is he exactly getting away with? I could point to many FACTS of things Obama got away with and you still argue against them. Yet there is nothing in the way of FACTS involving Trump and you want to hang him. Why is that?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Those others are what normal people call allies, and Putin had HIS translators in the room, so he did have other people Trump had no one.
And wasting money on the investigation ?
How much did ole Mr, Star waste trying to pin an extramarital blow job on Clinton??

flutherother's avatar

If Mueller proves there is nothing to the Trump Russia allegations won’t the $30 million have been well spent? Calling it a ”witch hunt” doesn’t discredit the investigation. It rather suggests that those who use such language, including Trump himself, fear what it may produce.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

^^Exactly ^^ If they have nothing to hide as all Rep/cons keep shouting then go out the way to help it along and get over as soon as possible, and save money and show the horrible left SEE there really was nothing!
Of course that is if they have nothing to hide.

ScienceChick's avatar

The Benghazi investigation went from 2012 to 2016. Secretary Clinton was cleared of all accusations. In a full and open investigation.

I’m going to guess that Paul Manfort is going to flip on Trump and go into detail about real estate deals that assisted Russians in laundering money that was earned on bribery, human trafficking and other internationally illegal activities. Just a hunch.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I think it’s been too long since Trump obstructed justice. I smell a firing coming up….

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I love it when it’s the right doing the investigation e.g.: The Mr Star and the Clinton Blow job it’s spare no expense.

But when the left do it to find out if the Russians did or did not meddle with the election it’s costing to much.

tinyfaery's avatar

I don’t think it’s treason. It’s just another example of Trump’s shady behavior. I don’t know how anyone believes anything that comes out of his mouth. And hahahahaha, @Yellowdog First word of first response: Obama. First sentence of second post: Hillary. Even if either one of them committed all the treason it does not mean Trump didn’t.

I disliked Obama 3 months into his presidency and I’ve hated Hillary since the 90’s, but the ire and constant blame of these 2 and the way everyone uses them as deflection is actually changing my mind about them. Their legacy is going to be as the stalwarts against a corrupt regime. So much for destroying their legacy.

ScienceChick's avatar

@tinyfaery You’ve HATED Hillary? That’s pretty strong. Why do you HATE her?

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s just not technically treason. That’s really the end of it…

ScienceChick's avatar

Not treason, but it will be found to be breach of the Emoluments Clause.
The only problem being whether the House or Senate will prosecute or not because right now, probably several members of the Senate and House would be culpable, so they won’t prosecute the sitting President with that charge. Personal profit by course of a foreign power in trade for special treatment in aid of that foreign power is a breach and I think there are many sitting US politicians who fall under this category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoluments_Clause

tinyfaery's avatar

Ok, I dislike her immensely.

chyna's avatar

I agree with @tinyfaery, deflecting and averting suspicions by pointing the finger at others. It didn’t work when I was a kid, it doesn’t work now. “Chyna are you smoking cigarettes? Yes but Bubby was too!” I was the one caught smoking, I was the one punished.

rojo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You may be right about the bloodletting,

Here is an interesting take on the matter by Steve Russell:

__I am not a paid pundit at this time, but I have been for much of my professional life and habits acquired over a lifetime die hard. My rant of the day, therefore, is going to feature some tightrope walking remarks about what the punditocracy is calling the “Seinfeld Summit,” because it is apparently not about anything.__

__The apogee of Mr. Putin’s KGB career was probably a policy gig that is subsumed into his current office and so would not stand out, so I think we back up one notch and look at his second greatest responsibility: spymaster.__

__The hardest part of gathering humint is not planting the sources, but rather gathering the harvest. Talking heads on Russian TV have been gloating about Mr. Trump’s description of the EU as our principal foe on the eve of the Putin Potlatch. Classic misdirection.__

__Our pundits are also off on speculations centered on US foreign policy, and indeed it’s entirely probable that Mr. Putin will require Mr. Trump to dial down our relationship with the Kurds fighting in Syria. That desire is second only to wanting the Obama sanctions lifted and so far Congress has stood in the way of that, although Trump has done his best.__

__But I’m thinking something that hit me in the face after the latest indictment in Mr. Mueller’s witch hunt. While I’m not surprised at where the latest coven was found, I am thinking that the degree of detail in the indictment is scary close to revealing sources and methods by a little Russian intelligence reverse engineering.__

__Mr. Mueller could have indicted this bowl of borscht and had an excellent side to Mr. Trump’s campaign ham sandwiches with substantially less detail. All he had to show was probable cause. While any Russian dumped in the borscht by the indictment could seek and would get a court order requiring more specificity with a pretrial motion, that’s an empty threat because there will be no pretrial motions unless Mr. Putin is willing to sacrifice somebody too high in Russian intelligence for comfort.__

__Putin cannot render up somebody at that level just to shake loose details because of what else that somebody would know and be tempted to spill for a dismissal and a sinecure in Witness Protection. The Cold War is over, but our standard of living still far exceeds Russia’s.__

__Therefore, I suggest the detail in the indictment was a shot across Mr. Putin’s bow. Putin is about to have a confidential meeting with the greatest intelligence asset he has ever controlled.__

__Putin, in his role as Head Witch, is going to tell Mr. Trump what to do about the Witch Hunt. From Trump’s point of view, whether to fire Mueller is a question of US domestic politics, and his hand has been stayed by the precedent of President Nixon firing Archie Cox.__

__Trump is extremely valuable to Putin, but the degree of un-necessary detail in that indictment signals that the US may be equipped to threaten assets that are even more valuable.__

__Putin as Trump’s handler has blown enough smoke to make Trump believe he’s so important that his care and feeding is at the top of Russian priorities. Trump is predisposed to think everything is about him, and so convincing him that Putin would do anything to protect him is not the most difficult task Putin has ever faced.__

__So, within a couple of months of Trump’s return from Helsinki I expect a firm decision (as firm as Trump gets) on firing Mueller, who has manipulated both the timing and the contents of that indictment to encourage Putin to instruct his main asset to fire Mueller.__

__Mueller has a firmer grasp than Mr. Putin on what would happen to the Witch Hunt within the DOJ if the Witch Hunt were to be decapitated by the POTUS.__

__While Mueller has a history of placing his country’s welfare above his own, he’s in no danger from this high risk gambit. If he’s fired, he joins Archie Cox as a good guy in the history books and he gets a significant pay raise.__

__What makes it a high risk gambit is that Trump could halt the Witch Hunt if he is willing to fire enough people at DOJ to make the Saturday Night Massacre look like the Queen of Hearts having a tea party. The number of firings would look like and in a sense would be a full bore coup d’etat if it’s possible for the head of government to stage a coup.__

__Should Trump take that bait, he would have to chomp down before the November elections——something Putin would notice even if he’s not up on the inside baseball of the DOJ.__

__The latest indictment has put the ball in Putin’s court to either order Mueller fired or to order Mueller not fired. Many talking heads have observed the unusual contents of the indictment. Not a one has yet suggested why Mueller did that beyond a general implied threat of retaliation.__

__I just did__.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

That’s OK @tinyfaery I dislike Trump immensely.
@chyna
But that is all the right really have when it comes to king Trump, Deflect,deflect,deflect.
Don’t answer the question just deflect blame Obama or Clinton if your lucky you can blame both.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@rojo I doubt if Trump would dare fire Mueller at this stage. I’m certain that he’s been warned about the guaranteed catastrophic effect on Republican candidates in the upcoming elections. And Trump’s loss of either chamber in the Congress would render his tenure as President virtually untenable. Besides, at this stage, whatever dirt thus far accumulated on Trump and his crew is destined for revelation, with or without Mueller.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m starting to wonder if there is anything Trump could do to get himself impeached.

stanleybmanly's avatar

If the dems win either the Senate or House, you will see the publicly fought offensive to declare him unfit for office, and the accumulated evidence supporting that declaration is already better than compelling. It will be THE issue with which the dems can mercilessly bludgeon the Republicans, and rest assured that Trump will in the middle of it do his level best to display behavior justifying every assertion on his unsuitability.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III First he would actually have to commit a crime worthy of impeachment. To date, that hasn’t happened. And I suspect it won’t. Despite popular opinion on these pages, President Trump really isn’t a stupid person.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Meeting Putin totally alone could definitely be a sign of stupidity, how does anyone know he didn’t hand over the US nuclear codes?
I mean he makes stuff up on the fly declaring Canada a National security threat, so he could impose tariffs.
He may not be utterly stupid but he sure is one loose cannon, I will never figure out why you right wingers love him so much.
His outright lies are off the charts, (I know,I know the other said lies too) but not to the degree Trump does.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I mean you right wingers went nuts when Clinton lied about getting a blow job, G-A-S-P!! HE LIED TO THE NATION, I will say this nicely he lied to save his ass from Hilary.
And you take Trumps lies with a shrug ,like oh well.
I don’t get it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The KKK’s slogan “Make America Great Again” would be a start. @SQUEEKY2

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 unfit for office doesn’t necessarily translate to criminality. Trump is forcing that point into the public forum. And if his antics cost the Republicans either chamber, there will be some lively discussions as to why (if he isn’t stupid) he says and does stupid things with such routine habit.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yeah. He can be impeached for that…

I don’t see impeachment going smoothly. Nor do I see Trump leaving to be pretty. Either way, the country is in a for a rough few years. The best we can hope for, is Trump to be thrown out, and the Dems drag their feet like the GOP did with Obama. Nothing good would get done. But nothing worse would happen. Then hit the restart button in 2020….

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly and @MrGrimm888 you two are pieces of work! Impeachment and removing from office for being unfit are two entirely separate things. They are covered under separate articles of the Constitution and have two separate processes. Impeachment is for Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors and is covered under Article 2, section 4. Disability of the President is for other things such as debilitating illness or death…something that would prevent him from discharging the duties of his office and is covered under the 25th Amendment. I think you two need to bone up on the Constitution so you don’t sound silly. It is getting old having to cite chapter and verse for you to help educate you when you make foolish statements. And before you start ranting about removal for being unfit, you might want to look at what it takes to pull that off. It is an interesting process.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Thanks for the reminder. We’re going to hear a lot about the 25th Amendment in the coming days. As for President Trump not being a stupid person, I’m inclined to agree with you. But that leaves the question of what IS wrong with him? It’s a question the Republican Congress chooses to ignore. The Democrats, on the other hand, will not be so dependably charitable. Trump is just too juicy, cooperative and vulnerable a target to ignore.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Article 2, section 4… If think I believe you have the constitution memorized, you’re kidding yourself. Bit nice to brag as if you do. Very Trumpish. You two are some “stable geniuses.”..

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You might want to read up on the 25th amendment before you start getting really wound up. As for what is wrong with Trump? That’s fairly easy. He’s pompous and egotistical, aggressive and demanding. In other words, he has the same traits as every other president we have had for the past 100+ years. He isn’t polished and doesn’t play political games. He’s subtle like a sledgehammer. But he isn’t crazy. That’s where your 25th hope is going to fall apart. For a president to be removed from office, either the VP and a majority of the cabinet OR a majority of Congress need to deem him unfit for duty. Once he deems himself fit again, he can be reinstated. If the Cabinet/VP or Congress still wants him removed from office, it will take a ⅔ majority of Congress to eject him again. So a simple majority won’t handle it. Nor will pet psychologists saying he seems unfit without ever actually spending time with him. It is a very difficult thing to pull off. Now, he isn’t young and isn’t in great shape. If he physically fails and cannot execute his duties that is a way for the 25th to be utilized as well. But in either case, Pence would take office. And if you truly believe that America would sit by and let the corrupt Dems try to steal the office of the President this way, you are sadly mistaken.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 No, I don’t have the Constitution memorized. That’s a given. But I do know how to use the internet and I have looked this one up a number of times before. I like to go to the source so I don’t look silly. Article 2, section 4 is where impeachment is addressed. You could have found that as easy as I. The part that is sad, but typical of liberals, is that they don’t bother to look these things up. They go off what they think they know, what they feel, or what the media has told them. Impeachment and removal from office due to being unfit to discharge the office are two entirely different things that have separate criteria and separate methods of execution.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^You do realize that there is a difference between looking something up, and interpretation? Just because you know which article regards removing an unfit POTUS, does not mean that you have detailed understanding of the law, the information available to those who would judge Trump, or how the powers that be will interpret the evidence, as it pertains to being fit/unfit for the duties of the office. Feel free to feel smart for using Google. It doesn’t make you a constitutional lawyer…

Again, very Trumpy of you…

seawulf575's avatar

So you were a LEO. Let me ask…if you pulled someone over for DUI, would you try arresting them for B&E with only the evidence of DUI? I don’t have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that you have to apply the right rule. The fact that you are trying to argue otherwise is really, really, sad.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So he can denounce his own agencies ( because of an annoying investigation on him) take Russia’s word that they didn’t meddle in the US election, even though 12 or so Russians have been charged for doing just that.
Cuddle up to Putin a ruthless dictator .
Isn’t grounds for treason, or make him stupid?
What does it make him?
I know the best president you have ever had sorry I can’t see it.
And just another note, little off topic a big nail factory deep in the land of Trump just had to lay off most of it’s work force because it can’t afford to use US steel in it’s production and the tariffs made it to costly as well.
First the soy bean farmers.
Now this nail factory.
Wow your President sure knows how to win trade wars,but he aint stupid.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What I find mind boggling is the fact that after the Helsinki meeting has been universally pronounced the landmark strategic diplomatic disaster in Presidential history, the fool hops in for an opportunity to outdo himself. He doesn’t learn from his mistakes, and doesn’t even know enough to REALIZE that he doesn’t know enough. The odds are that even Putin had no idea as to just how gigantic a dufus he now finds himself entangled.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay….this is for all the Trump haters out there…he is the POTUS. He is required to interact with foreign leaders. What, EXACTLY, would have suggest he had done with Russia? Please, enlighten us all with your foreign policy.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Kissing Putin ring is not regular interacting.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Sound foreign policy for Trump would be to allow people who know what they are doing to negotiate for him, and try to advance his policies. For his own good, when it comes to dealing with diplomatic matters, he should be gagged and locked in a closet.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The potential for disaster when you entrust the ship of state to a fool is without limit.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 You yourself said Obama should have gotten more in involved with Russia over the Crimea thing, you also stated he should have been more involved with NK over the nuclear thing.
So he should have acted like Trump?
Trump openly bad mouths and insults allies, cuddles up to dictators and you defend him?
So foreign policy is insult your allies,and butt kiss your advisories?
Is that the conservative policy or just the Trump policy?

Yellowdog's avatar

Trump got results from NATO and has been tougher on Russia and North Korea than any president since Reagan. Obama and his cabinet did nothing about Russia or North Korea, gave 150 Billion to Iranian Mullahs. Funny how things get twisted and distorted in your rhetoric.

Had Hillary been elected president, her ‘Pay to play’ policies with foreign adversaries, a privilege she enjoyed as secretary of state under Obama, would have continued with Putin. That’s a very scary thought.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE PRESS CONFERENCE???
What I saw looked like a lot of kiss ass on Trumps part,that was being tougher?
He got nothing substantial out of North Korea either and you know it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^As I’ve said, unfortunately Trumpers are lost causes…

SQUEEKY2's avatar

NO shit!
Doesn’t matter how much Russian ass he kisses, or American jobs he looses over his extra fucking dumb tariff war,it’s still all Obama’s fault.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Something like that. I personally don’t like it when someone pisses in my pocket and tells me it’s raining. Conservatives just dance in the piss…

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You make the assumption that his people didn’t do any negotiations before the summit. I’m willing to bet they did. You might think Trump is an idiot, but you would also then assume Putin is an idiot as well…agreeing to go to a summit without any prior discussions.

seawulf575's avatar

And all of you that are still trying to slam Trump still haven’t listed a single thing that you feel Trump should have done. You have only listed opinions that Trump is a fool or that he somehow screwed up or that he was lip-locked with Putin. The question remains on the table: What EXACTLY would you suggest he had done with Russia? Until you can give an intelligent answer to that, your statements are no more than spewed hate.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Squeeky2: Of course Trump has been tough on Russia. I shudder to think where we’d be if Hillary had won. Her Pay-to-Play policies which were so friendly to our Muslim adversaries would carry over to Russia.

In case you missed it, last April, the Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Russia — including strict sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest individuals and 17 top government officials for their interference in our elections. Obama did nothing about Russian interference—until it became something to blame Trump’s victory on.

The sanctions directly penalized President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle by prohibiting them from traveling to the United States ever again. He did this by opening a bank account in the West, preventing them from doing business with the West and prohibiting anyone else to do business on their behalf.

The sanctions were significant — among the toughest sanctions ever placed on individuals in a foreign country, with the exception of perhaps Iran and North Korea. Yet like many of Trump’s successes, it received minimal mainstream media coverage.

During his first month in office in January 2017, President Trump upheld strict sanctions to punish Russia for its unlawful 2014 annexation of Crimea. With those sanctions, the Trump administration punished more than three dozen individuals and organizations that were behind the invasion of Ukraine.

Even Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had a hand in the actions, stating that there would be no easing of the sanctions until Russia meets its obligations under the 2015 Minsk agreement — the ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

In August 2017, Trump signed a bill slapping even more sanctions on Russia — this time specifically aimed at the country’s energy and defense industries. Congress made the legislation Trump-proof, meaning that no executive order could ever undo such sanctions; yet Trump signed it anyway.

In fact it was Trump — not Obama — who ordered the closure of Russian diplomatic properties in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York City that appeared to be a threat to American security.

It was also President Trump who shuttered the Russian consulate in Seattle.

To be sure, Obama kicked 35 Russian diplomats out of the country after suspected election meddling by Russia, but only after Trump won the 2016 election. It is questionable whether he would have done so had Hillary Clinton succeeded in being the victor.

Furthermore, it was President Trump who led the world in expelling Russian diplomats after the Russian government was suspected of carrying out a nerve agent attack in the United Kingdom against one of their former spies. President Trump moved swiftly to expel 60 Russian diplomats from U.S. soil, and other countries followed suit by expelling dozens as well.

In addition to stringent sanctions, President Trump has also called out Russia publicly.

During a speech last year in Poland, Trump lambasted Russia for using oil to hold NATO’s Eastern European countries hostage. Trump underscored the dangers of those countries’ dependence on Russian oil deliveries to keep their people warm during the winter, leading to their inability to criticize Russia the rest of the year.

The Trump administration even offered to help identify alternative energy sources for the region. Trump’s remarks on European soil was the energy industry equivalent of Reagan’s “tear down that wall” speech.

Many of you criticize Trump’s recent NATO speech—rebuking NATO members to pay their share of military defense. Merkel had some kind of pipeline deal with Putin. They were / are slated to become energy dependent on Russian energy and leave our other NATO allies behind, benefiting personally, but still demanding NATO protection if things went bad with Putin.

Compare all of the above actions to Obama’s milquetoast policy on Russia and outright appeasement on issues such as the “red line” that Russia blew right past in Syria. Obama’s lackluster track record with Russia is in stark contrast to the Trump administration that has already, in its first 18 months, surpassed what Obama did over a total of eight years.

chyna's avatar

When will Trump and Trump fans stop bringing Hilary Clinton up? It is questionable whether he would have done so had Hillary Clinton succeeded in being the victor.
Was that part necessary to your explanation? To me it is merely deflection.

seawulf575's avatar

@chyna pretty much how I feel about all the innuendo and opinion spewed about President Trump.

flutherother's avatar

I would have liked to have seen the President of the United States face down Putin for the immoral thug and bully that he is but this was never going to happen with Trump, a man cut from that same cloth.

However, in my view Trump should have:

1. Declined to speak with Putin in private.
2. He should have raised the issue of Putin’s annexation of the Crimea and his invasion of eastern Ukraine.
3. He should have voiced his concern that Putin had the Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny arrested and barred from running in the presidential elections.
4. He should have at least mentioned the notorious novichok incident in the UK where a Russian military grade nerve agent was used in the streets of Salisbury to try to murder an opponent of Putin. A British citizen, Dawn Sturgess, died following accidental contamination and her partner was seriously and perhaps permanently injured.
5. Trump should have discussed the issue of Russian interference in US elections.
6. He should have defended the US State Department and the US intelligence community rather than undermine them in public and in the presence of the leader of a foreign power.
7. Until he is ready to “man up” and confront Putin over these and other issues he should not take part in further meetings that only humiliate the country he represents.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

What I’ve figured it out :

“Hillary is not President”

So anything Trump does to trash the country is okay
End long term international agreements is okay.
Change government policy is okay.
Tweet security change without talking with his security head is okay.
Kiss Putin ass is okay.

Because
“Hillary is not President”

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I find it VERY hard to believe that you are OK with Trump’s meeting with Putin. If you saw, even excerpts, I can’t believe that you had no problems.

Many have expressed their opinions on how Trump should have handled it. You apparently just aren’t listening…

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother They did talk about Crimea. They talked about Syria. They discussed economic issues between our two countries.
Talking about the Russian opposition leader could be construed as us interfering in their elections. And, Navalny was arrested after the election, not before. He was barred from running, but I don’t know the laws of Russia. Maybe he violated them.
As for mentioning the Novichok incident, you have to remember the details. Rowley says he and his girlfriend, Sturgess, found a “perfume bottle” in a park. They picked it up and took it back to their flat. This is the bottle that supposedly held the nerve agent. It doesn’t sound like Putin had anything to do with that, other than the nerve agent was made in the USSR, but was stopped being produced 25 years ago. If you were a Russian agent attempting to target someone, would you just leave a weapon in a park on the hopes your target would pick it up and use it on themselves? And if Rowley was the target, why put it in a perfume bottle? So you are suggesting that, given these facts, it would have been politically prudent to accuse Putin of wrongdoing?
Trump and Putin have spoken about potential interference by Russia in our elections in the past. Putin denies all knowledge of it. You are suggesting that it would have been politically prudent for Trump to call Putin a liar on the public stage? I’m not saying Russian interference in our elections is right, nor that Putin is not lying. What I am suggesting is that without solid proof that Putin knew and sanctioned interference, accusations can cause more harm than good.
I would say that throwing our intelligence agencies under the bus in a public forum is not the right thing to do. I will say that our intelligence agencies have brought much disgrace on themselves over the past 8 years, but you don’t air your dirty laundry like that.
The problem with our speculation is that we don’t know what was discussed prior to the summit. We don’t know what was discussed during the summit, though some hints came out later. We are trying to hold President Trump to a level of performance that is unrealistic. The left is upset because Trump didn’t charge in with accusations and solve all the wrongs they see that needed to be fixed all in on meeting. It is not realistic to expect that. Beyond the fact that much of the accusations cannot be proven, it could anger the Russian leadership resulting in tougher conversations later on. It isn’t kissing ass, it is fighting battles now that you feel you can fight now and working to lay the groundwork for future battles.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 no, no one has offered suggestions of how he should have handled it…they have railed about how stupid he was, how he slobbered all over Putin, they have ridiculed what he did do, but no one, until @flutherother just now, has offered any actual suggestions on what he should have done. There is a big difference.

rojo's avatar

What he should have done, given the information he received on the 12 GRU agents named in the investigation and given the underlying purpose was the attack on our elections he should have made a public statement (after his NATO trashing) saying that based on this latest DOJ action and what it appeared to represent, he was cancelling any face to face meeting with Putin until further notice.

Then let lower level diplomats from both sides carry on their negotiations/work/diplomacy.

seawulf575's avatar

@rojo so avoid other nations that don’t like us…that is the plan? Ever consider how many elections we have interfered in? Like it or not, Russia, China, and the US are really the biggest kids on the block. We need to interact. We can control what those interactions look like. They can be two big kids squaring off for a fight or they can be discussions to try making the playground a place we all want it to be. Despite the anger the left had at Trump for being tough with NK and spouted worries about starting WWIII, that seems to be what the left really wants. They didn’t like when Trump actually sat down to negotiate with Un. They want him to come out guns blazing at Putin, but then would scream about his lack of polish and how he is starting WWIII. I think the left needs to sit down and actually have a solid set of values and to stick by them. Then they would have a consistent argument for or against the actions of our leaders.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 I listed something and NOONE has addressed it. But I don’t think I expect you to address any facts here, so dance in the piss, but I’ll have an umbrella. (and if you think Trump got something out of NATO, you really are lost and not listening to facts. There WAS NO NEW AGREEMENT. They agreed to exactly what was agreed before, I think they just had to draw what was going on for him in crayon so he understood it. When he understood it, he claimed victory, and wiped the applesauce from his chin with his bib and went and had a nap.

rojo's avatar

No @seawulf575, and you know that is not what was seid, notice I did point out that lower level talks/discussions should continue but not on the dumbass to leader level. But rather than argue with you I will just point out that you asked what should he have done in our opinion. I gave you my opinion. Accept that it is my opinion.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well our Trump lovers are not going to see anything wrong with their beloved Trump.
It was great that he met with Putin totally alone, everyone can trust Trump(he never lies)
And what looked like total kiss ass to Putin was just Trump being diplomatic(Sheeesh)can’t you lefties tell the difference?
Obama started those sanctions against Russia, and Trump wanted to lift them now the right say oh no it was wonderful Trump that started those sanctions and even imposed tougher ones.Sorry I brought my umbrella to this piss dance, but you can keep dancing.
And to keep saying he accomplished so much with ole Kim on NK ? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?
He promised to withdraw US forces from the area and that went in under Obama, and ole Kim will LOOK at denuclearization, THAT is a great deal??

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 You can’t have fair elections if the opposition party leader is barred from standing. Regarding the Novichok incident Putin’s target was Sergei Skripal, who along with his daughter actually survived the attack which took place in March this year. It was three months later that Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley came into contact with the nerve agent. Three policemen were also affected by the nerve agent when examining the Skripal’s house, one of whom was seriously ill for a time and may suffer long term health problems. This wouldn’t be the first time Putin has tried to assassinate opponents who live abroad but using military nerve agents recklessly in a western city is clearly unacceptable yet Trump let it go. Can you imagine his reaction if Islamic terrorists were deploying nerve agents in this way?

There was enough evidence to charge 12 Russian military intelligence agents with conspiracies against the US, identity theft and money laundering. Yet Trump will say if Putin denies it he will believe him. That isn’t standing up for America nor is it laying the groundwork for future battles. It is capitulation and you could read it in Putin’s face throughout their meeting.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother I find it interesting that you compared the Novichok attack to Islamic terrorists. The left went nuts when Trump suggested proper vetting of immigrants coming from nations that have sworn to harm us. They called it a Muslim Ban. So which is it? Should he address problems or not? He met with the Saudi leader. Why aren’t you upset that he didn’t come out guns blazing about Saudi bank rolling terrorists? See…this is where I get bothered. When there are contradictions coming out in an effort to just cause problems. I have mentioned NK several times…same thing. People railed against Trump for being tough, saying he should have negotiated. Those same people then railed against him for negotiating and not being tough.
I’m not saying Trump is great, nor am I saying he is some fantastic negotiator. But I will stick to one opinion of how he should do things.

rojo's avatar

The problem dear @seawulf575 is your definition of the terms “tough”, “negotiate” “proper vetting” are not the same as ours.
And, using your same logic, why is there no “Russian Ban”? They have sworn to harm us also. Why no “Saudi Ban”? They provided the funding and manpower to bring down the twin towers and their fundamentalist mullahs also detest America and call for its downfall.

flutherother's avatar

Of course Trump should address problems but he doesn’t address them in a consistent way. He over reacted to the Islamist threat and he is now failing to react to the Russian threat.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother and that is my point about the liberal viewpoint…it doesn’t react in a consistent way.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

^^ No bother to answer @flutherother just deflect it to the liberal side??^^
He insults allies,and you call it being tough, Trump ass kisses Russians ass and you call it being diplomatic.
Are you trying to get the left to believe he is the greatest,or yourself?
And you point being consistent.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 the funniest part about your statement is that you believe I am trying to say he is the greatest. I’m not. But I am saying that those attacking him are doing so for the sake of hate rather than for reason. If you look back, most of the criticism is for him being an idiot (an opinion based on feeling) or him being a racist (an opinion based on what the media tells you to believe) or him being all sorts of other things that aren’t really based on his performance. Despite all the hate, he has done some really great things for this country. Unemployment is down. Unemployment among minorities are at historic lows. Optimism in our economy is up. We are starting to get recognized as a leader in the world again instead of the subservient nation we were starting to be viewed as.
I have stated what I see as his faults a number of times. And here is where I hold to my previous statement: I NEVER see any liberal do the same about any of the liberal darlings. Talking to these people they are perfect in every way and a sane person knows that to be a fantasy. You say he insults our allies. I see him sticking up for our nation. You see him as kissing ass, I see him as being diplomatic. In fact, I see him doing all the things Obama used to do that the left will never acknowledge. Remember the world apology tour? Talk about kissing ass! And that was to our enemies too. But none of you will admit to that. You will try saying I am deflecting when what I am doing is pointing out hypocrisy.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But his policies are already hurting the American work force, 1 The Soy Bean Farmers,next that US nail factory I pointed out a few posts up.
And I said that YOU look at it as sticking up for your nation,you do that by insulting allies?
Oh and sorry I never did see Obama insulting any US allies could you point that out with a link?
AS for being diplomatic with Russia, even his own staff didn’t like him meeting Putin alone,then appeared to be ass kissing in the press meeting, could you point out where Obama did that sort of thing?with a link?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

OK I will tell you why I am attacking him.
1. He screwed a lot of labourers and trades people out of hard earned wages when he pulled his shady bankruptcies .This is a guy who cares for the average working slob?

2. He declared Canada a national security threat (which was a lie) just so he could impose tariffs.

3. he separated children from parents with no real plan on how to ever get them back together.

4 He gutted the ACA and replaced it with nothing,guess the people that depend on it can just go die.

5 insulting allies, (yeah I know that you think that’s him being tough) but really?

As for liberal media, shit even your beloved Fox is having a hard time as of late defending him.

Yellowdog's avatar

Of course, you are still repeating that Trump “separated children from parents.” This was actually a congressional act from 1998 and has been going strong since then, Most Americans became aware of it in 2000, 2009, and 2014. Obama refused to sign a executive order. Trump was the first one to sign an executive order even though this was really up to congress.

The gutting the ACA—well, everyone’s rates went up. People had extremely high deductibles and could not use the insurance. Also, the ACA was illegal. You cannot force anyone to buy government health insurance and penalize them if they don’t,

Many solutions were proposed as workable alternatives but there was obstruction by both Republicans and Democrats—mostly Democrats, who exclaimed that the alternatives were absolutely terrible and inhumane.

The average working individual could not afford the ACA rates and deductablles

President Trump got results in the NATO meeting—America was financing over 70 percent, even 91 percent by some estimates including defense of nations that were forming allegiances with Putin himself. I guess its okay if other NATO nations are friendly with Putin.

Trump doesn’t always say the nicest things in the nicest ways, but he is quite astute in what is necessary to protect America and strengthen our economy. Unlike his predecessors who did not follow through or even do anything about Russian meddling

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Fine then the Trump administration should have had a plan on how to get children back with their parents,that would have made them the super good guys instead of blaming it on an act from the late 90’s.

Also with ACA you say it was way to expensive, no one could afford it, so gut it and replace it with nothing and blame Obama for that as well.

Gee and you didn’t bring up the tariffs, imposed by the great Trump and has already cost American jobs,guess that was Obama’s fault as well or was it Hilary’s?
And how is losing American jobs good for your economy?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trumpy is the best thing since the 65 million years ago

SQUEEKY2's avatar

With Super Trump at the wheel, I’m confused about this so called wall he wants,is it to keep foreigners out,or Americans in??

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And this Nato success that Trump and his lovers claim was such an achievement the Nato countries didn’t agree on anything new, they did agree to aim for the 2% that was targeted long before Trump even became President.
Trump boasted that they were going for much higher, but the other countries didn’t agree to anything other than the planned 2%.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The question was about treason. None of the actions that I am aware of meet those stipulations.

@srawulf575 . Maybe I am confusing this thread with another. If you haven’t seen suggestions about Trump’s summit, they have already been put forth. If not on this thread, I apologize…

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I have plenty of criticisms concerning the people you call “liberal darlings” including both Obama and Hillary, beginning with the fact that both of those people are moderate Democrats. But to pretend that their flaws are in any way equivalent to Trump’s shortcomings is laughable.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly See? That’s what I’m talking about. You consider a criticism to be identifying them as moderate democrats. I’ve stated all sorts of things about Trump…he’s pompous, arrogant, sometimes childish…yet all you can come up with on the liberal darlings is “moderate democrats”. That’s not a criticism, it a categorization. I don’t believe you are physically or psychologically capable of actually criticizing them.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You don’t understand. I’ve been screaming since I arrived here on the democratic party’s failings. On the bread and butter issues, the only claim the democrats have is “we aren’t as crazy as nor as openly screwing you as the republicans. Both parties are dedicated to the redistribution of wealth from the middle to the top, and the multimillionaires Clinton and Obama are fully complicit in the process. All of the silly offenses and supposed crimes of Hillary and Obama that you parrot from your blog buddies amount to nothing next to the fact that Obama bailed out the banks with no restrictions or penalties, and Bill Clinton threw the poor of this country under the bus and is largely responsible for the swarms of impoverished people swamping our borders.

But you insist on perpetuating the ridiculous myth that Obama and Clinton are somehow as sleazy, inept and criminal as the current clown. Worse, you relegate criticism of the fool to hatred as though he were actually fit to serve as President.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther