- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can we all agree that Hillary and Obama betrayed our country with the uranium deal?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:21 pm to culsutiger
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:21 pm to culsutiger
quote:
You think 1/5th is most? You're reading and typing, so I know you're literate. You must be innumerate then.
You must not grasp that 90% of the uranium used for the nuclear power in this country is imported, not domestic. So you are still hanging onto a false statement. Only a very small fraction of our energy footprint relies upon domestically source uranium for nuclear power.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 9:24 pm
2
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:23 pm to bonhoeffer45
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:26 pm to culsutiger
quote:
I'm starting to question your literacy now. Let me quote the post of mine that you're responding to.
Which would of happened with or without us approving the transfer of our mines.
You are operating under the false assumption that America could of done anything but deny ownership transfer of the relevant domestic mines. Which make up a very minuscule(and decreasing) portion of Uranium One's portfolio. The Russian company wanted access to Kazakhstan, they would of still been interested in the deal even if denied the US mines.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:27 pm to frogtown
quote:
Rosatom, the Russian company who purchased Uranium One,
How many people had to approve this? Was this solely Clinton/Obama? Honest question.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:30 pm to jeff5891
quote:
How many people had to approve this? Was this solely Clinton/Obama? Honest question.
We had no say in whether Uranium One could be purchased by Rosatom.
All we could do is review and allow or deny the part of the transfer that concerns our domestic mines. A no probably would of complicated the deal, but in all likelihood been worked around and finished anyways.
By all evidence we have Clinton was not even involved in the process. The transfer was reviewed by a group consisting of 9 agencies that all had to sign off on it. Led by the treasury. And Obama had veto power to any yes.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:32 pm to jeff5891
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:41 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What about Facebook does?
Disinformation
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:41 pm to bonhoeffer45
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:44 pm to culsutiger
quote:
You approve of increasing Russian control of uranium, but not of selling Facebook ads to Russia.
You keep building this strawman.
The only person to introduce and talk about facebook is you.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:49 pm to FightnBobLafollette
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:54 pm to culsutiger
quote:
You approve of increasing Russian control of uranium, but not of selling Facebook ads to Russia.
We've gone over this twice now.
The government has had no controlling role in Facebook's decision, furthermore, the reason for the concern is because those Russian companies and state sponsored fronts exhibited actual and purposed malice with their operations. Nothing present or during the sale of Uranium One showed such evidence. And if such evidence of malfeasance does occur the government would and should take action. The fact Trump and congress are not currently doing anything to signal something occurring with the current arrangement is running afoul, or advancing steps to address stated present or suspected near-term national security issues from this decision is why the term "actions speak louder than words" matters. Because the words of the Trump administration right now are not matching what their actions tell us.
This is not a difficult thing to understand.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:56 pm to Old Sarge
I'll wait for depositions testemony murders/suicides etc first.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:57 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Then why do you keep getting it wrong?
This is not a difficult thing to understand.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:01 pm to bonhoeffer45
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:06 pm to culsutiger
quote:
That's a lot of words to just say yes.
You seem to require them to understand pretty simple contexts and to see obvious distinctions. Though you are seemingly still struggling to grasp the latter.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:12 pm to bonhoeffer45
Regardless of anything you are arguing, there was still a magnificently large mining concession made in exchange for speaking fees and donations. This type of "transaction" isnt uncommon at all for the Clintons albeit usually on a smaller scale.
There was the Dattels deal in Bangladesh
The Giustra deal in Kazakhstan
The First Quantum and Ludin deals in the Congo
It would be intellectually dishonest to try and spin this one. Defending Clinton, at this point, is useless and counterproductive.
There was the Dattels deal in Bangladesh
The Giustra deal in Kazakhstan
The First Quantum and Ludin deals in the Congo
It would be intellectually dishonest to try and spin this one. Defending Clinton, at this point, is useless and counterproductive.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:15 pm to tiger4life69
quote:
You’re still tying to push this Nothing burger? Do you actually know the facts associated with this deal? Not speculation or fake breitbart shite but actual facts? Because if you did you’d give it up
Fact: The Clintons got bribed. Pay for play.
Fact: That is illegal.
Chew on those facts and how about you give it up.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:23 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Regardless of anything you are arguing, there was still a magnificently large mining concession made in exchange for speaking fees and donations. This type of "transaction" isnt uncommon at all for the Clintons albeit usually on a smaller scale.
Exactly how can a quid pro quo be established with Uranium One when there isn't even a single bit of evidence Clinton was at all involved in the review process(that spanned 9 agencies, the president, and countless participants) over the sale of this Toronto based company?
At least the pearl clutching about national security concerns could have a semblance of credibility if the current GOP congress and the Trump administration weren't showing such concern by advancing all of zero meaningful actions to rectify all these catastrophes of national security they are going on Fox News to fear-monger about that approving this deal caused. Besides, of course, supporting more Benghazi style investigations into Clinton. Who again, there is no evidence was even involved in this review process.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 10:51 pm to bonhoeffer45
Oh, for sure! All of those Obama era political lackeys were definitely going to put the brakes on uranium one, just like they did on the countless other quid pro quo deals the Clintons brokered while she was so SOS, right? She did a boat load of crooked shite, but THIS deal was pure as the driven snow!
The truth is, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom was engaged in racketeering, felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering. shite that libs are melting over with Manafort as I type. The DOJ kept it under raps for years before pleading it out for a fricking slap on the wrist (Holder was a CFIUS member who approved the deal even as he was investigating Rosatom for felonies). And they certainly knew that Russia was a hostile nation, despite Obama's dismissive rhetoric in 2012. And they absolutely knew that the Clintons had a major COI with Giustra. Now, in spite of export restrictions, it has been reported that uranium has already been shipped out of the US and we don't know where it has gone. Russians are totally trustworthy, right?
Don't be so naive. There isn't a reason to defend this crook anymore.
The truth is, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom was engaged in racketeering, felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering. shite that libs are melting over with Manafort as I type. The DOJ kept it under raps for years before pleading it out for a fricking slap on the wrist (Holder was a CFIUS member who approved the deal even as he was investigating Rosatom for felonies). And they certainly knew that Russia was a hostile nation, despite Obama's dismissive rhetoric in 2012. And they absolutely knew that the Clintons had a major COI with Giustra. Now, in spite of export restrictions, it has been reported that uranium has already been shipped out of the US and we don't know where it has gone. Russians are totally trustworthy, right?
Don't be so naive. There isn't a reason to defend this crook anymore.
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 10/31/17 at 11:38 pm to culsutiger
quote:
I think the insinuation from the right is "CFIUS/Clinton put our national security at issue by allowing the Russians to possess the uranium".
How exactly are the Russians going to "possess" the uranium?
U.S. subsidiaries remain the licensees, and remain the entity qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, as part of the restrictions imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory commission on the transaction.
Do you think the NRC would approve the transfer of the uranium recovery license to the Russians/Rusatom???
The Russian parent company is just entitled to the profits from the sale of the uranium from the U.S. subsidiary which operates the mines, as is generally the case in any subsidiary-parent company relationship.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News