Archive

2016 Election Thread

  • QuakerOats
    CenterBHSFan;1878707 wrote:IMO, the greatest 2016 election "meltdown" will always be The Young Turks!

    [video=youtube;KBH5RpmzdyI][/video]

    Obviously, and for good reason, I have never heard of these nuts or watched them, but that is good stuff - hilarious.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Sorry, been traveling for work.
    But, the story about the Uranium One makes no sense.
    Uranium mines only make up a fraction of the uranium used now a days for plants. It is not even used for weapons. The U.S. and Russians have more uranium and plutonium than they know what to do with, left over from the Cold War. Most of the uranium in reactors now a days is from retired and down-blended weapons. Why the hell would it matter if a Russian firm owns a mine, so what? It is a fraction of a fraction of the uranium in this country, and only then for research reactors and small plants. It also would not even register on the State Depart radar. It is just a routine sell that probably stayed at the lower levels of government.
    Sounds like it is more shit to throw at the wall to make Clinton looks bad.
    The Dirty Dossier stuff is par for the course. Of course Clinton and the campaign would dig up dirt, just like Trump did with them. The fact is, it wasn't used and the intelligence community has determined much if not all of it is not credible. It was just a source of raw material that has been vetted and found to not be really credible.
  • queencitybuckeye
    ptown_trojans_1;1878748 wrote:Sorry, been traveling for work.
    But, the story about the Uranium One makes no sense.
    Uranium mines only make up a fraction of the uranium used now a days for plants. It is not even used for weapons. The U.S. and Russians have more uranium and plutonium than they know what to do with, left over from the Cold War. Most of the uranium in reactors now a days is from retired and down-blended weapons. Why the hell would it matter if a Russian firm owns a mine, so what? It is a fraction of a fraction of the uranium in this country, and only then for research reactors and small plants. It also would not even register on the State Depart radar. It is just a routine sell that probably stayed at the lower levels of government.
    Sounds like it is more shit to throw at the wall to make Clinton looks bad.
    The Dirty Dossier stuff is par for the course. Of course Clinton and the campaign would dig up dirt, just like Trump did with them. The fact is, it wasn't used and the intelligence community has determined much if not all of it is not credible. It was just a source of raw material that has been vetted and found to not be really credible.
    Yet the Clintons profited from it. Harmless or not, are you saying it's OK?
  • QuakerOats
    Gullible, to say the least.
  • gut
    queencitybuckeye;1878751 wrote:Yet the Clintons profited from it. Harmless or not, are you saying it's OK?
    C'mon - not even top-10 on the list of shady things the Clintons have done :RpS_lol:
  • ptown_trojans_1
    queencitybuckeye;1878751 wrote:Yet the Clintons profited from it. Harmless or not, are you saying it's OK?
    I'm saying it is ginned up to be a bigger story than it is really was.
    When you break it down into how the uranium process and mines work, the story falls apart. It just has the sexy words to stay alive: Clinton, Russia, Uranium.
    The dredging of the story from years ago is simply to misdirect from the current Trump White House.

    Short podcast from my old boss on the issue.
    http://armscontrolwonk.libsyn.com/uranium-fever
  • CenterBHSFan
    Nothing that the Clinton's have been involved in, or are involved in, is ginned up to be bigger than it is.

    The factor to look out for is when their shenanigans are exposed and how long it takes to expose everything (if that's even possible with those two).

    Seriously, Ptown, I'm starting to wonder if you're Gibby's alter-ego.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Oh come on.
    I'm not disagreeing with any past Clinton story. I'm just saying this one makes no sense.

    Seriously, I think people will believe any shady Clinton story.
  • queencitybuckeye
    ptown_trojans_1;1878755 wrote:I'm saying it is ginned up to be a bigger story than it is really was.
    When you break it down into how the uranium process and mines work, the story falls apart. It just has the sexy words to stay alive: Clinton, Russia, Uranium.
    The dredging of the story from years ago is simply to misdirect from the current Trump White House.

    Short podcast from my old boss on the issue.
    http://armscontrolwonk.libsyn.com/uranium-fever
    Two simple binary questions. 1) Did the Clintons profit? and 2) is it OK that they did, because the effects are overstated? Simple, yes and no questions. Do statists still remember how to answer those?
  • like_that
    LOL ptown has always been quite the apologist. His wild spin zones are always great to read, but I would never go as far as saying he is gibbys alter ego.
  • CenterBHSFan
    like_that;1878760 wrote:LOL ptown has always been quite the apologist. His wild spin zones are always great to read, but I would never go as far as saying he is gibbys alter ego.
    He needs that from time to time!
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1878755 wrote:I'm saying it is ginned up to be a bigger story than it is really was.
    When you break it down into how the uranium process and mines work, the story falls apart. It just has the sexy words to stay alive: Clinton, Russia, Uranium.
    The dredging of the story from years ago is simply to misdirect from the current Trump White House.

    Short podcast from my old boss on the issue.
    http://armscontrolwonk.libsyn.com/uranium-fever

    Bizarre comments.


    How did the money end up in the Clinton coffers then? The investors who benefited in the uranium deal just magically wanted to be charitable to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

    Jesus Christ, wake up.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=34066


    Nice summary.
  • BoatShoes
    queencitybuckeye;1878751 wrote:Yet the Clintons profited from it. Harmless or not, are you saying it's OK?
    I admittedly don't know the facts but explain to me how you think the Clinton's profited from the sale? Moreover I think you mean, also, if the Clinton's did profit, was it unjust or wrongful or the result of some kind of corruption.

    Sounds to me like well prior to the purchase by the Russian firm and before Hillary was even secretary of state the Clinton Global Initiative received contributions for a center to fight poverty from a prior owner and that the later sale was approved by the statement department.

    Don't really see any evidence of a nexus to profit for the Clinton's in the same way there's not really any evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Seems the benefit to the Clinton Foundation happened well before the sale. Is the allegation that it was wrongful for the Clinton Foundation to create the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative with Canadian Frank Giustra?

    This is a really good example, I think, of how anti-democrats/anti-clintons use the same kind of spurious reasoning and assumptions that the anti-trump people on the left do when it suits their worldview.

    But maybe somebody can fill us in with the details to show me the hard evidence of corruption, etc.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1878766 wrote:I admittedly don't know the facts but explain to me how you think the Clinton's profited from the sale?

    Yes, I'm certain the Clintons are involved in charity strictly out of social benevolence, and has NOTHING to do with a way to launder payoffs and kickbacks.
  • O-Trap
    ptown_trojans_1;1878758 wrote:Seriously, I think people will believe any shady Clinton story.
    I don't disagree with this, and it IS grounds for a flawed conclusion.

    However, whether or not this one in particular is false or overblown, it's worth pondering why so many (including those outside the Tea Party wanking circle) find the accusations believable.
  • superman
    As with most things Clinton, the lies and cover up are the task issue.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/
  • gut
    superman;1878772 wrote:As with most things Clinton, the lies and cover up are the task issue.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/

    Interesting. My theory is they intended to dump this as a bombshell, but decided against it because they were so confident Hillary was going to win. After he won, the DNC decided it was a way to obstruct Trump, score political points and attempt to preserve some of Obama's legacy. Seems mixed results on all that to-date, but we won't really know until after the 2018 elections.
  • gut
    Sanders plans to run in 2018 as an Independent.

    @#$%!%#@! Why even have an election - let's just give Trump 4 more years.
  • QuakerOats
    [h=2]OCTOBER 26, 2017[/h]
    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIALIZES: Democrats, Russians and the FBI: Did the bureau use disinformation to trigger its Trump probe?
    [INDENT]It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI. This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation.
    The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee jointly paid for that infamous “dossier” full of Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. They filtered the payments through a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie), which hired the opposition-research hit men at Fusion GPS. Fusion in turn tapped a former British spook, Christopher Steele, to compile the allegations, which are based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.
    Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say “collusion”?
    This news is all the more explosive because the DNC and Clinton campaign hid their role, even amid the media furor after BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in January. Reporters are now saying that Clinton campaign officials lied to them about their role in the dossier. Current DNC Chair Tom Perez and former Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz deny knowing about the dossier arrangement, but someone must have known.
    Perhaps this explains why Congressional Democrats have been keen to protect Fusion from answering dossier questions—disrupting hearings, protesting subpoenas and deriding Republican investigators. Two of Fusion’s cofounders invoked their Fifth Amendment rights last week rather than answer House Intelligence Committee questions, and Fusion filed a federal lawsuit on Friday to block committee subpoenas of its bank records.
    The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work in the runup to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians.
    Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?
    [/INDENT][INDENT]All of this also raises questions about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators.
    Mr. Mueller is a former FBI director, and for years he worked closely with Mr. Comey. It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.
    [/INDENT]
  • QuakerOats
    "Meanwhile, the latest disclosures about the FBI, the Clintons and the Russian uranium scheme raise big questions about former FBI chief Robert Mueller — who’s now the special counsel investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 race. Who investigates the investigator?"

    http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/clintons-collusion-who-will-investigate-the-new-russia-scandal/
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1878770 wrote:Yes, I'm certain the Clintons are involved in charity strictly out of social benevolence, and has NOTHING to do with a way to launder payoffs and kickbacks.
    The exact reasoning without proof that liberals use regarding Trump/Russia that you have complained about incessantly.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1878908 wrote:The exact reasoning without proof that liberals use regarding Trump/Russia that you have complained about incessantly.
    Sure, because the evidence in the two cases is exactly the same. Ummm-kay.
  • QuakerOats
    $145 million that is routed through Canadian entities in order to shield scrutiny when it magically ends up in the Clinton coffers doesn't just occur out of generosity.
  • FatHobbit
    BoatShoes;1878766 wrote: This is a really good example, I think, of how anti-democrats/anti-clintons use the same kind of spurious reasoning and assumptions that the anti-trump people on the left do when it suits their worldview.
    I know this has been said here before, but there are very vocal groups on each side who only care about their team winning. It makes me crazy.