*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3700 on: February 23, 2019, 03:21:11 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."

Is that a "no"? Because I asked you about Giustra, the man responsible for most of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation, and now you're talking about Uranium One. You can change your position if you want to, but you should be clear about it.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3701 on: February 25, 2019, 12:49:38 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."

Is that a "no"? Because I asked you about Giustra, the man responsible for most of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation, and now you're talking about Uranium One. You can change your position if you want to, but you should be clear about it.
Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you normally just in a state of denial?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3702 on: February 25, 2019, 12:52:45 PM »
Wait wait wait....




Clinton runs the Canadian Government?!
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 #3703 on: February 25, 2019, 01:03:01 PM »
"On April 20, 2007 Uranium One acquired UrAsia Energy, a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver, from Frank Giustra, who then resigned from the UrAsia Energy Board of Directors.[9][10] Having severed ties with UrAsia Energy and Uranium One in 2007, Giustra had no evident beneficial interest in the firm's subsequent sale to Rosatom in 2010. UrAsia has interests in rich uranium operations in Kazakhstan,[11] and UrAsia Energy's acquisition of its Kazakhstan uranium interests from Kazatomprom followed a trip to Almaty in 2005 by Giustra and former U.S. President Bill Clinton where they met with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the leader of Kazakhstan. Giustra denies reporting by The New York Times that he and Clinton traveled together to Almaty.[12] Substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation by Giustra followed,[9][13] with Clinton, Giustra, and Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim in 2007 establishing the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative to combat poverty in the developing world.[14] In addition to his initial pledge of $100 million, Giustra pledged to contribute half of his future earnings from mining to the initiative.[14] There is no indication that Giustra was contemplating any transaction with Russian interests at the time he began donating to the Clinton Foundation in 2005; rather, he sold UrAsia Energy to Uranium One, a Canadian company, in 2007. That sale was completed two months before he made his pledges to the Clinton Foundation.[15]"
Why deny it?

If you have severed ties?

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3704 on: February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3705 on: February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3706 on: February 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.


Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal. 
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 #3707 on: February 26, 2019, 11:45:50 AM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.
Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.
She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3708 on: February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.
Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.
She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.


Couple of things.


1. Yes, apparently it did.  Because Uranium One, A CANADIAN COMPANY, had one mining operation in the USA.


2. Of the 9 person panel, none objected.


3. Only the president could veto it.


4. Canadian officials also approved it.




So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?
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 #3709 on: February 26, 2019, 01:30:29 PM »
So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?

No, apparently only Hillary!
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3710 on: February 26, 2019, 01:41:50 PM »
One wonders, if Russia is such a powerful enemy, then why is selling them such a large portion of the world's uranium supply to them no big deal? One also wonders why Germany is having an express gas pipeline built connecting them directly to Russia, which endangers Baltic states to being blackmailed, yet Germany doesn't actually seem to mind. Russia going from a-okay to the Big Bad so quickly is hilariously reminiscent of "we've always been at war with Eurasia".

Many media outlets also stumble around on China, because they have death camps, and they're a dictatorship, but Trump is a big meanie who is mean to them, and that's bad.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 02:21:34 PM by Rushy »

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #3711 on: February 26, 2019, 02:05:42 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.
Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.
She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.


Couple of things.


1. Yes, apparently it did.  Because Uranium One, A CANADIAN COMPANY, had one mining operation in the USA.
20 percent of the US uranium...

Countries with the largest uranium stockpiles:

Australia. Australia possesses around 30% of the world's known recoverable uranium reserves. ...
Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the 42nd-largest economy in the world and the largest former Soviet Republic by area (excluding Russia). ...
Russia. ...
Canada. ...
South Africa. ...
Niger. ...
Namibia. ...
China.
OMG!!! THE RUSSIANS (YOU KNOW, OUR SWORN ENEMY) AND KAZAKHSTAN (A STAUNCH RUSSIAN ALLY, THEREFORE OUR SWORN ENEMY) TWO AND THREE?
OMG!!! CHINA, STAUNCH ALLY AND PROTECTOR OF THAT DASTARDLY KIM JONG UN, NK DESPOT, THE BASTARD WITH THE FAT FOREARMS, IN A STRATEGIC POSITION TO FUNNEL URANIUM TO NK FOR THEIR NUCLEAR MISSILES!
2. Of the 9 person panel, none objected.
One should have, but had MILLIONS of REASONS not to...
3. Only the president could veto it.
Fellow NEOCONS will not override other NEOCONS...

Besides, whats a little uranium here or there...who cares who has it?

By the way, how's my AG doing with that Fast and Furious thing down there on the border? Still fast? Still furious? WTF? Speed it up!
4. Canadian officials also approved it.
Are Canadians still allowed to work there if we sell or will the jobs be outsourced to members of the Russian mob? Some Canadians keep their job? GREAT, EH!?!?
So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?
Nice try with the labels...Not one official holding US elected office since has been either Republican or Democat.

All have been sell outs in the strictest sense and all truly deserve long, anguishing deaths...NEOCONS, COMMUNISTS, SHITBAGS, every last one of them...

Except of course:
OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED SUPREME LEADER!!!

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3712 on: February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM »
One wonders, if Russia is such a powerful enemy, then why is selling them such a large portion of the world's uranium supply to them no big deal?
Because its not illegal?  And we don't care about Uranium?  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Build more nukes on top if all the ones they already have?  Might as well get upset someone is buying a pistol when they own a gun shop.




Quote
One also wonders why Germany is having an express gas pipeline built connecting them directly to Russia, which endangers Baltic states to being blackmailed, yet Germany doesn't actually seem to mind.
Personal self interest.  Germany imports a fuck ton of natural gas for heating.  And the next biggest exporter is Norway and they don't have pipelines under the sea to Germany.


Quote
Russia going from a-okay to the Big Bad so quickly is hilariously reminiscent of "we've always been at war with Eurasia".
Because no one cared when Russia annexed Crimia...
Seriously, they haven't been a-ok for a long time.

Quote
Many media outlets also stumble around on China, because they have death camps, and they're a dictatorship, but Trump is a big meanie who is mean to them, and that's bad.


Its less about the dictator and death camps and more about the "They take our jobs!" For Trump.
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.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3713 on: February 26, 2019, 03:25:00 PM »
Because its not illegal?  And we don't care about Uranium?  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Build more nukes on top if all the ones they already have?  Might as well get upset someone is buying a pistol when they own a gun shop.

It's actually someone buying an entire iron mine when they own a gun shop, we already know Russia has help North Korea and Pakistan acquire nuclear material and nuclear weapons in the past. Are you saying that because they've already helped out two enemy states, that helping more of them is really no big deal? Honestly, Dave, do you even read what you're writing?

Personal self interest.  Germany imports a fuck ton of natural gas for heating.  And the next biggest exporter is Norway and they don't have pipelines under the sea to Germany.

Well, yes, of course it's self-interest. One has to wonder why one of Europe's leading nations is helping itself and throwing the Baltic states to the wolves.

Because no one cared when Russia annexed Crimia...
Seriously, they haven't been a-ok for a long time.

Actually, it's looking like no one really did care when they annexed Crimea. That's why this new Germany-Russia pipeline is a big deal, because it means Russia will now have a much easier time blackmailing and annexing territory right next to them. Rather than make it harder for Russia to do so, Germany is busy trying to make it easier, I wonder why that is?

Its less about the dictator and death camps and more about the "They take our jobs!" For Trump.

They do, though, in fact China has always admitted it wishes to economically weaken the West and for the most part has accomplished that goal. In twenty years when China is the most powerful nation on the planet and is still a death-camp focused dictatorship, you're going to wish Trump had done a lot more than he did.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2019, 03:28:31 PM by Rushy »

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3714 on: March 03, 2019, 11:18:07 PM »
http://www.donaldjtrump.com/404

Now this is a good meme right here.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 01:50:19 PM by Lord Dave »
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 Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3718 on: March 07, 2019, 12:53:20 PM »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3719 on: March 07, 2019, 01:14:13 PM »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"