This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (24 posts)

What will GOP do when Trump lifts Sanctions off of Russia?

  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 18 months ago

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/ … index.html is an article about the "war within the GOP" regarding sanctions.  It is so bad it may scuttle Trump's choice for Sec State.

    The fact is, because Congress could not govern, Obama used executive orders to institute sanctions against Russia to supplement some Congress passed in the past. 

    Trump is Seriously thinking about lifting those sanctions and Forgiving Putin for all his past transgressions against Ukraine, Europe, NATO, and America.

    The very sad fact is, that because of Trump, a full 35% of Trump Voters now have a Favorable Opinion of Putin and not the murderous tyrant he is.

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/1 … er-russia/

    In 2013 Wikileaks had a NEGATIVE 47 opinion of Wikileaks, to day it is a POSITIVE 27



    How do you think this will play out.  (Obviously, I don't think any good will come of it and probably great harm.)

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      You seem to have posted the wrong link (first one).  That one is about nothing more than the burning curiosity of some (mostly Democrat) electors about CIA activities and the strong desire to find excuses, rational or ethical or not, to violate their written word (and the law) on where their vote will go. 

      Nothing to do with sanctions put onto Russia by Obama, legal or otherwise.  Certainly nothing to do with GOP reaction to removal of those sanctions.  Just about the unethical behavior of some electors

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Damn, you're right.  It should have been http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/ … y-tension/

        As to the electors, those who tried to vote their conscience is in line with the 12th Amendment.  I presume the states replacing electors will be taken to court which must find their laws of forcing electors to vote a certain way is unconstitutional. 

        Also, those laws have Hamilton, Jay, and Madison rolling in their graves as their predictions of a demagogue-led public making a big mistake comes true.

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Well here's another damn... I almost agree with you. Up to the part about the prediction.

          I'm not so sure about Madison, but Hamilton would surely be spinning. The historical record is very clear that you are right about the "demagogue" concept being a foundation block of the EC's construction.

          But...that block had two parts. One concerning being misled by a demagogue, the other concerning an uninformed voting public. I agree with the purpose of both parts, but there is a large segment of folks that say those protections are no longer needed. They say the public's easy access to available public medias have eliminated the uniformed voter motive, and that our society has become too sophisticated to fall for a demagogue. I say they are wrong.

          So consider this: Many of the Left consider Trump to be that demagogue, so they don't think those 2016 Faithless electors were wrong. The Right considers them traitors.

          Now consider how much of a political earthquake Trump's victory was. I doubt either side would debate that it was just that, and I think his election might be the test and the proof that the EC worked as planned. A few Electors, (give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment), saw Trump as the exact demagogue the Founders worried about. Those Faithless of pure heart, really would be doing just the duty our Constitution asked of them. This time it was around twenty Electors, not enough to alter the results. But enough to prove the EC's purpose.

          Just as an extreme, farfetched, and non-Trump example;

          What if 100, or even 200 Electors saw the same black-souled scoundrel behind the public mask of an election's winner. And what if they truly were right,  wouldn't those EC's Electors be nation savers?

          Or would Popular-Vote advocates just say to hell with consequences, go with the votes!

          Of course there is ...the other hand; maybe we have reached a point where those two EC functions are outdated. It seems hard to argue the reality that our current information access is light-years beyond that of the Founder's time, and that same information access just might imply that if we elect a demagogue, in this day and age - it is our just deserts.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Well said, GA. 

            Actually, those who had suffrage in Hamilton's period were pretty well informed.  While they didn't have the Internet, radio, or TV, they did have newspapers, broadsides (posters), taverns where people did argue politics, and other means of getting the message out.  In those days, however, newspapers were mostly owned or controlled by or clearly in bed with one faction or another (they didn't have formal Parties yet. 

            In my research, I was surprised to find some states allowed free-blacks and women vote.  After Andrew Jackson, however, no states did.

            1. GA Anderson profile image80
              GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              And there is a point that deserves its own thread... the media of the times.

              I have a less positive view of its role informing voters. My readings have painted the newspapers and broadsides of the times, primarily, as either propaganda organs of the powerful, or soapboxes of the radical - as you also noted. Taverns on the other hand probably played a more useful role than newspapers or posters.

              After the early 1800s, (when suffrage expanded), I am not so sure the 'average' voter of times was "pretty well informed"  at all.

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Didn't have to be, lol.  So much booze was flowing at rallies that they couldn't read anything anyway.  I think the only period where voters were somewhat informed was between WW II and 1980.  After 1980, they stopped teaching government, civics, and the like in our schools and it just kept getting worse after that.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Unfortunately, there is not a single word in the Constitution barring states from requiring electors to vote the popular vote.  Not a one.

          And no, reneging on their promise is also not addressed in the 12th amendment.  You're forgetting that tiny little detail; that their contract with the state includes a pledge as to how to cast their vote.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            As I said, it will have to go to the Supreme Court.  It as once, which found it constitutional for a state to require an elector to "Pledge" to vote a certain way, but not to actually vote that way in a 5-2 decision in Ray v Blair (1952). 

            The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."[9] More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."[10]

            So, as I said, the States with such laws are certainly going against the "Intent" of Article II and the 12th Amendment, so now it is up to a very conservative Supreme Court to determine if the the writers knew what they wanted.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              If it is ever challenged, yes, it will have to go to SCOTUS.  If they will even hear it; as there is no verbiage indicating anything like what you say was intent, they may very well refuse to hear any arguments and leave it to states just as the Constitution does.

              It is one thing to take the word of a handful of the "elite" of the time as indicative of what the constitution means or demands, it is quite another to declare that the majority of signers/writers mean that.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                Try reading the Federalist Papers or Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  That's what I said: the opinions of a couple of the elite are not necessarily those of the majority of the writers.  Couple that with a total lack of guidance in the Constitution and SCOTUS may refuse to hear any case concerning state's rights to choose or control electors.

                  Neither Hamilton (writing the Federalist Papers) nor Madisons notes are the Constitution; they are only their opinion on what should be.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    The writers of the Constitution were all aristocrats of one form or another.

    2. Don W profile image85
      Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      I predict that Trump's downfall will either be related to a conflict of interest, or Russia, or both.

      He's already made a grave mistake in setting himself up against the intelligence community. These people are purveyors of secrets. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some "leak" of information about Trump or his administration. Probably not now, but at a time when it's most politically damaging. The FSB is not the only security service that can hack a computer and leak information from it, and it's inconceivable that the intelligence community doesn't already have human and/or electronic intelligence capabilities being brought to bear on Moscow.

      Moreover, a US that's cosy with Russia is a nightmare scenario for the EU. Merkel and Hollande already called for more sanctions on Russia, which Trump is unlikely to respond to due to his budding bromance with Putin. So I don't think many western European countries (and their security services) would be too concerned about allowing information damaging to Trump to be "leaked", if it meant removing him as a destabilizing influence on the geopolitical stage.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I think the fastest thing to bring Trump down will be is war on trade; it will have the most immediate negative impact on our economy.

        Hell, he is already conducting foreign policy by telling the world he will impose huge tariffs by Executive Order, which he can do.  The last time that happened was the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act Hoover got passed to protect American farmers and industry at the beginning of the Great Depression ... it made a very bad depression into the worst ever.

    3. Prayerhub profile image76
      Prayerhubposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      If Trump will make friends with Russia and bring about  peace ,let him go on, let those who are opposed to peace remain silent. Whar profit does it give America, Russia and the whole world if the two strong nations go about bombing other nations in the name of bringing peace to bear in those areas, when they are not eating  comfortably on the same table. They are hipo.

  2. PhoenixV profile image68
    PhoenixVposted 17 months ago

    It's just a hunch but I'm starting to think that Hillary Clinton didn't forward her emails to WikiLeaks after all. Perhaps Trump should consider building a cyber wall around America sort of like China. A free and open Society should not be free and open. The entire news, media and entertainment industry should not just have the fix in for Hillary Clinton. It should just restrict itself to state news in general.

 
working