Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3680 on: February 20, 2019, 01:36:28 PM »
Fix your post, Noob.

*

Offline Cain

  • *
  • Posts: 1086
  • This is the line of division.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3681 on: February 20, 2019, 01:40:48 PM »
Learn how to not be blind 8) 8)
You just made my list, buddy.  >:(
this world does not have room for another mind as intelligent as yours.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3682 on: February 20, 2019, 03:22:40 PM »
I hate that.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3683 on: February 20, 2019, 04:48:03 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696146089/trump-threatens-to-cancel-california-s-929-million-high-speed-rail-grant

Boy is Trump being obvious with his wall block rage.

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695954246/trump-officials-tried-to-rush-nuclear-technology-to-saudis-house-panel-finds

Hope the Right rages at him since they hated Hillary for selling uranium to Russia, who has nukes already.
You do not believe there is a significant difference between advocating for something to take place and something actually taking place?

Hmmmm?

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3684 on: February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3685 on: February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM »
Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 05:13:52 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3686 on: February 20, 2019, 05:15:38 PM »

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3687 on: February 20, 2019, 05:17:21 PM »
Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3688 on: February 20, 2019, 05:34:44 PM »
Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?
Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.

What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3689 on: February 20, 2019, 05:38:30 PM »

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?
Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.[/quote]

Technology.  Muh bad.

Quote
What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Nothing.  Do you have a problem with Trump's hypocrisy is the question.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3690 on: February 21, 2019, 11:43:57 AM »

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?
Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.

Technology.  Muh bad.

Quote
What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Nothing.  Do you have a problem with Trump's hypocrisy is the question.
[/quote]
What hypocrisy?

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3691 on: February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM »
When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3692 on: February 21, 2019, 04:49:05 PM »
When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.
I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3693 on: February 21, 2019, 06:55:43 PM »
When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.
I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3694 on: February 21, 2019, 07:51:46 PM »
When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.
I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.


Didn't hillary SELL weapons?  Making a profit for America?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3695 on: February 22, 2019, 04:24:37 AM »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3696 on: February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM »
But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3697 on: February 22, 2019, 11:19:37 AM »
When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.
I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.
Wrong.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287

As you can see it only had to do with the money going to the Clinton Foundation, from Saudi Arabia, and all due to the fact of the Saudi Islamic fundamentalists and their treatment of homos and women.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3698 on: February 22, 2019, 11:24:04 AM »
But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3699 on: February 22, 2019, 12:53:02 PM »
But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."


Capitalism ftw!
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.