Posted on Mar 3, 2017
Do you really believe the Trump Administration would throw America under the bus?
103K
2.05K
871
210
210
0
With all the rhetoric about Russian collusion and no evidence at the present to validate the accusations.
1. Exactly what does Russia gain with a Trump Administration that affects our National Security? Foreign interference is common in elections even by the U.S.
2. Why do you believe the Trump administration would conspire with Russia?
3. Do you believe Vice President Pence or Congress would go along with this idea?
1. Exactly what does Russia gain with a Trump Administration that affects our National Security? Foreign interference is common in elections even by the U.S.
2. Why do you believe the Trump administration would conspire with Russia?
3. Do you believe Vice President Pence or Congress would go along with this idea?
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Russia
National Security
United States
Donald Trump
Office of the President (POTUS) Russia National Security United States Donald Trump
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 338
0
0
0
The problem with our two party system seems to be: You vote for this guy so that that guy won't get elected, then you vote for that guy so this won't get elected. You aren't voting for any body. You get caught in a downward spiral until you reach the bottom where we are today. The people being elected are all crooks so there is no choice. The trick is, how do you keep these vermin in check so you can live your life. Both Major party's have failed miserably and are selling off America to feed their greed
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The guy that would have thrown America under the bus left office about a year ago. The woman that would have thrown America under the bus for a contribution to the Clinton Foundation lost the election and subsequently the Clinton Foundation. So no, I'm not at all worried about President Trump.
I've been out of the service too long. I didn't see my MOS on the list. I'm not a corporal either. I wasn't that smart. That was a salute to you, CPL Higgens, wherever you are. Everyone be safe and have a Merry Christmas and Hanukkah.
I've been out of the service too long. I didn't see my MOS on the list. I'm not a corporal either. I wasn't that smart. That was a salute to you, CPL Higgens, wherever you are. Everyone be safe and have a Merry Christmas and Hanukkah.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think a lot of you aren't being objective. RallyPoint clearly has a right-leaning bent, and any response that starts with "Dems covering for election losses" is almost wilfully negligent of a couple of facts. I may even agree that there's an effort to push off the DNC and Clinton's inadequacies on Russian influence, but that's not the whole story by a long shot.
1. What does Russia have to gain?
With South Ossetia and Crimea, Russia has been profoundly expansionist in the last decade under Putin, and temporarily, Medvedev (we know who still was in power). This has rightly made Poland, other former Soviet bloc, and Baltic states rightly nervous. As such, we've increased our commitment to them significantly. We're fielding tens of thousands of Guard soldiers through these states at an unprecedented scale. We have ongoing operations in Poland literally named "Deter Russian Aggression."
Anyone that avers that Russia has nothing to gain from leverage on the executive branch clearly lacks situational awareness.
HOWEVER, before some conservative tears into me, I would point out that the fact that these missions continue at the same pace as under the previous administration may mean Russian influence is overstated.
But there is evidence. Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc. How significant these things may be isn't clear, but there's plenty of evidence Russia *tried*, and they did make contact with the administration, without dispute, prior to Trump's victory and during the transition. This is a matter of fact now, not subject for debate.
2. Would the administration sell out America? I'd like to believe no, but the reality is, some may not see suffering Russian expansion as "selling out America." Any response here is subjective. The previous two administrations already sat on their hands with South Ossetia and Ukraine, so I'm not convinced countering Russian expansionism has changed. Being on less adversarial terms with Putin seems to have little impact on the ground. Russia is going to do what Russia is going to do. We have coequal branches of government, and Congress may push action where the President might not. And we have to evaluate for ourselves whether Russian expansionism is a bigger strategic threat to us than China's growing assertion in the Pacific.
3. What VP Pence would do is almost immaterial. I'm not convinced he has a significant role in present foreign policy. I believe now as I did when he was selected that he was an appeal to a conservative base who were rightly dubious of Trump's moral fiber. I do believe that at some point, VP Pence will be POTUS.
This issue has legs, whether we want to reduce it to partisanship or not. I also don't think it bears being pigeonholed into a black and white, he did/he didn't, frame.
1. What does Russia have to gain?
With South Ossetia and Crimea, Russia has been profoundly expansionist in the last decade under Putin, and temporarily, Medvedev (we know who still was in power). This has rightly made Poland, other former Soviet bloc, and Baltic states rightly nervous. As such, we've increased our commitment to them significantly. We're fielding tens of thousands of Guard soldiers through these states at an unprecedented scale. We have ongoing operations in Poland literally named "Deter Russian Aggression."
Anyone that avers that Russia has nothing to gain from leverage on the executive branch clearly lacks situational awareness.
HOWEVER, before some conservative tears into me, I would point out that the fact that these missions continue at the same pace as under the previous administration may mean Russian influence is overstated.
But there is evidence. Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc. How significant these things may be isn't clear, but there's plenty of evidence Russia *tried*, and they did make contact with the administration, without dispute, prior to Trump's victory and during the transition. This is a matter of fact now, not subject for debate.
2. Would the administration sell out America? I'd like to believe no, but the reality is, some may not see suffering Russian expansion as "selling out America." Any response here is subjective. The previous two administrations already sat on their hands with South Ossetia and Ukraine, so I'm not convinced countering Russian expansionism has changed. Being on less adversarial terms with Putin seems to have little impact on the ground. Russia is going to do what Russia is going to do. We have coequal branches of government, and Congress may push action where the President might not. And we have to evaluate for ourselves whether Russian expansionism is a bigger strategic threat to us than China's growing assertion in the Pacific.
3. What VP Pence would do is almost immaterial. I'm not convinced he has a significant role in present foreign policy. I believe now as I did when he was selected that he was an appeal to a conservative base who were rightly dubious of Trump's moral fiber. I do believe that at some point, VP Pence will be POTUS.
This issue has legs, whether we want to reduce it to partisanship or not. I also don't think it bears being pigeonholed into a black and white, he did/he didn't, frame.
MSgt (Join to see)
SSG Brian Kresge
Your statement of there being evidence is incorrect.
Actually the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates is about laundering money and being unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine between 2006 and 2015 prior to being associated with the Trump campaign.
General Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI about contacting the Russian Government and discussing delaying a UN resolution dealing with Israeli settlements which took place after the election. Which was in the scope of his duties as National Security Adviser and not illegal.
In the case of Attorney General Sessions there is no evidence of anything improper.
Your statement of there being evidence is incorrect.
Actually the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates is about laundering money and being unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine between 2006 and 2015 prior to being associated with the Trump campaign.
General Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI about contacting the Russian Government and discussing delaying a UN resolution dealing with Israeli settlements which took place after the election. Which was in the scope of his duties as National Security Adviser and not illegal.
In the case of Attorney General Sessions there is no evidence of anything improper.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think that is a serious and a silly question all at once. The short answer is no, of course. Although, there are dems that feel this way because Killary and Grandpa Bernie we’re well on their way to doing just that. Killary has thrown Americans under the bus in all actuality and at least 4 that are confirmed died because of it. I suspect that any halfway decent investigator could prove that there are over 50 more kills to her credit. Bernie and his attaché were willing to have the federal government pay for education, health care and a hundred other things that the federal government has no business being involved in. Too many people forget that the highest form of government in the US is at the individual state level. Any state can enact laws that negate federal law so long as it is better for their people. We live in a republic and that’s how it works. Get used to it.
(0)
(0)
1SG Michael Farrell
This is the guy who compared not getting VD to serving in Vietnam. This is the privileged .1% that has been catered to since birth. The Tax Bill is a further sell out of the American people for big business and the rich. He's lied about how it will affect him and his family. General Swartzkopf asked about Saddam Hussein "genius" military skills snorted and said, "He has no concept of strategy, nor is he adept at operationals, nor does he have any skills at tactics. Other than that..."
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Guys this is above your pay grade for active duty. And for those of who have retired just know this our fellow active service men and women we have your back. If I can say this Politics is like poker never show your hand unless you are playing to win. And if you are the last man playing mix them in with the pile.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
1. Nothing that Obama didn’t give away before - Ukraine
2. Not intentionally but if it wasn’t for Mathis and Kelley we’d be in a world of hurt. Pretty much everyone else is incompetent in world affairs. Heaven help us all if the Generals get fired.
3. Pence is a Rapture ready Christian. Good for societal morality perhaps but escapist fantasies is a lousy model to use when dealing with foreign policy.
2. Not intentionally but if it wasn’t for Mathis and Kelley we’d be in a world of hurt. Pretty much everyone else is incompetent in world affairs. Heaven help us all if the Generals get fired.
3. Pence is a Rapture ready Christian. Good for societal morality perhaps but escapist fantasies is a lousy model to use when dealing with foreign policy.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe that President Trump has already done more for our military and Vets than we have seen in many years . He appointed General Mattis , how long has it been since a President put a non PC General in charge ? Holding VA Hospital Leadership Accountable. For care . All I see past media hype is a President who wants to make America strong again for all Americans , not by voting block . But by being an American Citizen . If that sounds like a President who would sell out America he sure is doing a bad job of it
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
PO3 Steve Bagley Avoided the draft from 1964 to 1972. Was active in college sports but obtained a medical deferment. Claimed he didn't get drafted because he had a high draft number but failed to mention his deferment. Claimed a serious condition was the reason he obtained a deferment but could not remember what that condition was when asked. Bad mouthing POW as a loser for being captured. Claiming to raise millions for veterans but not paying a single dime until after being publicly challenged months later. Fighting with and talking crap about Gold Star families. Publicly claiming to have already contacted every family, but virtually none of the families were contacted until after his remarks. Promising money to a Gold Star dad but not paying a dime until after the story went public that he balked on his promise....
Trump did approve dumping the crap electronic medical record sytem at the VA. The Forever GI Bill is a significant plus I appreciate that Trump signed but my take is a bit different than the one you portray. In many ways I feel Trump is taking credit for things that had already been in the works for years (i.e. VA Accountability Act, VA Choice and Quality Employment Act) and the Republican controlled Congress is trying to send "wins" Trump's way where ever they can. Meanwhile, analysis of his tweets reveals that out of 450 tweet between Jan thru Jul, on 10 tweets mention veteran matters and 3 of those tweets involved the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act.
The has VA fired 525 staffers from 20Jan thru 3Jul, including doctors, nurses, housekeepers, grave diggers. Trump signed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act in Jun that changed civil service due process protections all VA employees and facilitates faster firing. Upon appealing a firing, judges must now afford deference to VA’s choice of penalty and must uphold the disciplinary action when VA proves misconduct by "substantial evidence" (more than a mere scintilla), a much lower threshold than the previously required "preponderance of evidence" (which was only a 51% level of confidence). Yet the vast majority of the firings occurred well before the new VA employment laws were passed; which makes one question why the VA needed more authority to fire people even faster with less cause and less evidence when these numbers prove the VA already had the authority it needed to clean house of dead weight.
The VA is making good progress this year. VA Secretary Shulkin may be a true reformer, but he's also a true holdover from the previous administration and the VA still is not fully staffed. Last time I checked, Trump has not named nominees for the top three VA positions under Shulkin. Trump didn't even release his official portrait until 31Oct, 9 months after taking office (just to get his Presidential picture out).
The multi-billion dollar IT work to replace the VA medical records that Trump has bragged about has yet to even be budgeted. His earlier claims (Jul/Aug) that VA health care is freely available without any delays is patently false. In the 30May "State of the VA" brief, Shulkin basically said the VA's outmoded scheduling systems would remain in place for several more years. Auditors and whistle blowers say long wait times and shoddy care continue.
Speaking before Congress, Shulkin acknowledged the extra costs of the IT upgrade could run between $4 billion and $16 billion, but none of those costs are accounted for in Trump's proposed 2018 budget.
Trump claimed participation in the VA Choice Program has nearly double but the real number is a much lower 26% for the first half of 2017; the same increase over the same period in 2016 with the previous administration. Trump also touted the VA tele-health program to increase electronic access to medical care as if it were a brand new thing, but more than 700,000 veterans made roughly 2 million tele-health appointments during 2016. Other things Trump has tried to take credit for, like publishing wait times at each VA or instituting same-day mental health services, also all took place before Trump took office.
Additionally, there are some scary clauses in the new laws that need to be watched. Pilot programs were authorized that may ultimately privatize VA services and dismantle the VA health system. If they stick to the script with limited pilot trials then everything should be fine but it might also prove to be the initial foot hold needed to tear the VA down.
Trump did approve dumping the crap electronic medical record sytem at the VA. The Forever GI Bill is a significant plus I appreciate that Trump signed but my take is a bit different than the one you portray. In many ways I feel Trump is taking credit for things that had already been in the works for years (i.e. VA Accountability Act, VA Choice and Quality Employment Act) and the Republican controlled Congress is trying to send "wins" Trump's way where ever they can. Meanwhile, analysis of his tweets reveals that out of 450 tweet between Jan thru Jul, on 10 tweets mention veteran matters and 3 of those tweets involved the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act.
The has VA fired 525 staffers from 20Jan thru 3Jul, including doctors, nurses, housekeepers, grave diggers. Trump signed the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act in Jun that changed civil service due process protections all VA employees and facilitates faster firing. Upon appealing a firing, judges must now afford deference to VA’s choice of penalty and must uphold the disciplinary action when VA proves misconduct by "substantial evidence" (more than a mere scintilla), a much lower threshold than the previously required "preponderance of evidence" (which was only a 51% level of confidence). Yet the vast majority of the firings occurred well before the new VA employment laws were passed; which makes one question why the VA needed more authority to fire people even faster with less cause and less evidence when these numbers prove the VA already had the authority it needed to clean house of dead weight.
The VA is making good progress this year. VA Secretary Shulkin may be a true reformer, but he's also a true holdover from the previous administration and the VA still is not fully staffed. Last time I checked, Trump has not named nominees for the top three VA positions under Shulkin. Trump didn't even release his official portrait until 31Oct, 9 months after taking office (just to get his Presidential picture out).
The multi-billion dollar IT work to replace the VA medical records that Trump has bragged about has yet to even be budgeted. His earlier claims (Jul/Aug) that VA health care is freely available without any delays is patently false. In the 30May "State of the VA" brief, Shulkin basically said the VA's outmoded scheduling systems would remain in place for several more years. Auditors and whistle blowers say long wait times and shoddy care continue.
Speaking before Congress, Shulkin acknowledged the extra costs of the IT upgrade could run between $4 billion and $16 billion, but none of those costs are accounted for in Trump's proposed 2018 budget.
Trump claimed participation in the VA Choice Program has nearly double but the real number is a much lower 26% for the first half of 2017; the same increase over the same period in 2016 with the previous administration. Trump also touted the VA tele-health program to increase electronic access to medical care as if it were a brand new thing, but more than 700,000 veterans made roughly 2 million tele-health appointments during 2016. Other things Trump has tried to take credit for, like publishing wait times at each VA or instituting same-day mental health services, also all took place before Trump took office.
Additionally, there are some scary clauses in the new laws that need to be watched. Pilot programs were authorized that may ultimately privatize VA services and dismantle the VA health system. If they stick to the script with limited pilot trials then everything should be fine but it might also prove to be the initial foot hold needed to tear the VA down.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Question is all new York Times post about Clinton true but if it's about Trump its fake news?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google