The EU debate - Part III

The reason my replies have a Trump leaning is that I'm generally responding to allegations from other people who tend to be be posting unsubstantiated personal bullshit rather than policy issues.

Have a dig on google into the situations around China and Russia.

 

You living in this world. Obama is causing trouble

 

I'm well aware of the situations. Trump would make both far, far worse, while ruining America.

 

That's a lovely, unsubstantiated statement, there. Great stuff.

 

The reason my replies have a Trump leaning is that I'm generally responding to allegations from other people who tend to be be posting unsubstantiated personal bullshit rather than policy issues.

 

Let's just have a bit of a level playing field for a second.

Obama is a murdering **** as much as the next bloke. If you look only at the increase in drone attacks that have gone up, infringed on sovereign airspace without permission and the number of ppl killed, it's nothing short of abhorrent. At best he's a weak man who failed to deliver the ideology of the rhetoric he spouted. At worst he's a warmongering **** with the blood of innocent men, women and children on his hands, and he has not made the world a better place.

Also ppl need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to Trump. His opinions on Russia (while brash and not what the american heirarchy want you to believe) have a lot of merit.

 

Par for the course.

 

Trump doesn't have opinions on Russia. He has money there and briefings from his handlers.

 

Trump is Putin's puppet. Can you not see that?

Of course Putin is supporting him. The same way he supported Brexit. He is using Trump to further his own influence, the same way he encouraged Brexit to divide what he sees as enemies to his despotic dictatorship.

 

Who’s in Putin’s Pocket — Clinton or Trump?


While serving as secretary of state to President Obama, Hillary Clinton delivered one fifth of America’s uranium deposits to Russia. So charge investigators who have been delving into the murky — and very alarming — dealings of Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation with a company known as Uranium One, and various “private” Russian companies and official Russian agencies. Moreover, her critics accuse Hillary and Bill Clinton of raking in a huge fortune (over $130 million) from the American, Canadian, and Russian investors who helped arrange for these Russian companies — under the control, ultimately, of Vladimir Putin — to take control of 20 percent of our strategic uranium assets. Indeed, according to some calculations, the Uranium One deal, involving top Clinton donors Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer, has transferred as much as 50 percent of projected American uranium production to Kremlin control.

This incredible story, with enormously important implications for our nation’s security, has been percolating for over a year, since Peter Schweizer’s bestselling exposé Clinton Cash — The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, brought it to light. (See also here, here, here, and here.)

please log in to view this image

Why does the explosive Clinton-Uranium One story — which has been buried (naturally) by the pro-Hillary establishment media for the past year — now take on new meaning and urgency? Well, for one thing, for the past several days Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been trying to make hay with the charge that recent comments by her Republican rival, Donald Trump, show “a very troubling willingness” to support Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday on July 31, Clinton reiterated the narrative that her campaign and her media allies had been flogging since the Democratic National Convention the previous week: that Trump’s off-the-cuff comments about her e-mail scandal amounted to Trump calling on a foreign adversary (Putin and Russia’s intel agencies) to meddle in a U.S. election and engage in cyberespionage against this country. Russia’s alleged hacking of her e-mail accounts, she said, "raises serious issues about Russian influence in our election."

"And for Mr. Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election, I think, raises national security issues," she charged. In the interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace, Clinton charged that Trump’s remarks on this issue show he is not “temperamentally fit” to be president. "If you take the encouragement that Russians hack into email accounts, if you take his quite excessive praise for Putin, his absolute allegiance to a lot of Russian wish-list foreign policy issues," she said, it suggests that "he is not temperamentally fit to be president and commander-in-chief."

Is that not rich? Hillary and Bill take massive bribes from Putin cronies to transfer ownership and control over the fuel for our nation’s nuclear power plants (which provide one fifth of our national electrical energy) and our nuclear weapons to Putin & Company — and then accuse her opponent of being in bed with Putin! Like the brazen thief who makes his getaway by pointing at a random passerby and yelling “Stop! Thief!,” Hillary is hoping to distract the American electorate from her own corruption, criminality, and treason by accusing her opponent of the very thing of which she herself is most guilty. That is hardly surprising considering the crime wave that has followed Team Clinton all the way from the governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House, to the Senate, to the Clinton Foundation, and on to Foggy Bottom — and beyond. Remember the Clintons and Whitewatergate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fostergate, Travelgate, Troopergate, Lincoln Bedroomgate, Bimbogate, Pardongate, Wacogate, etc., etc., ad nauseum? The Clintons’ penchant for criminality virtually saturated our political vocabulary with new “gate”-suffixed scandals.

However, with the help of their “mainstream media” JournoLista friends, the Clintons have always managed to escape justice in this temporal sphere. For the past 15 months or so, these same media pals have shielded Hillary from having to face hard questions about her central role in the uranium-for-cash deal with Putin’s minions. However, that could still be forced to the surface as a major stumbling block before the elections.

But wait — the Uranium One deal, as important and stunningly corrupt as it may be, is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. As we have been reporting here for years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been one of Putin’s biggest enablers, facilitating enormous transfers of advanced technology to the Russian regime she now sees as a threat. It was Secretary Clinton, please recall, who, in May 2009, presented Putin’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red “reset” button, and then mugged with Lavrov in a giggly photo-fest celebrating the U.S.-Russian “convergence” agenda. Clinton and Lavrov then served as joint coordinators of the U.S.-Russian Bilateral Presidential Commission established in July of that year by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The annual reports of the Bilateral Presidential Commission are replete with chummy photos of Clinton-Lavrov, Obama-Medvedev, Biden-Putin, etc., as well as details of the many deals worked out to give technology, knowhow, capital, and other resources to Moscow.

Among the many important projects of this type promoted by the Clinton-Lavrov team is the huge Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, which we warned about repeatedly in The New American as far back as 2010 (see, for instance, "’Breathing Pixie Dust’ Investing in Russia,” August 5, 2010). Putin’s new Skolkovo research and innovation center on the outskirts of Moscow, heralded as “Russia’s Silicon Valley,” is benefiting from billions of dollars of investment and prime technology from Cisco Systems, Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, General Electric, and other U.S. tech giants, thanks to support and promotion by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Then there is the case of billionaire Russian playboy Mikhail Prokhorov (see here and here), who, during Clinton’s reign at State, was allowed not only to buy up the New Jersey Nets (now the Brooklyn Nets) NBA franchise and the Barclays Center in New York City, but also to play a major role through his control of the Russian investment companies ONEXIM Group and Renaissance Capital, both of which played key roles in the Clintons’ aforementioned Uranium One scandal.

Yes, Mr. Trump has made statements that may give security-conscious Americans cause for concern, but deeds speak louder than words. And Hillary Clinton’s deeds speak in 5,000 decibel thunderclaps, declaring to all (except her willfully deaf devotees) that she belongs not sitting behind the president’s desk in the White House, but serving time behind bars in the Big House

 

And the author of this fine piece of one sided nonsense!?...

 

No they're not. You're giving far too much credence to the views of a thug and a despot. But then, you do that.

 

Who is the author of your nonsense, because unlike the one I posted, where you're limited to questioning who penned it, yours forgot to put any supporting facts.

 

The reason my replies have a Trump leaning is that I'm generally responding to allegations from other people who tend to be be posting unsubstantiated personal bullshit rather than policy issues.

 

So, you don't want to say. Thought not!..

What I posted were words from Trump's own mouth!..

Here's Trump's view of the situation. Laughable!...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ou-need-know-about-donald-trump-russia-and-u/

 

You've got the same link I've got.

Your post said "Trump is Putin's puppet" which I can't seem to find a link showing this coming from Trumps mouth.

 

So you're playing devil's advocate, rather than actually being in league with the devil? You sure about that?

 

Nope. It's not what I said.

 

Nothing ever is.

 

It's certainly nothing like the strawmen some seem intent on building. Your failing is that your own prejudice clouds your view on what's written.

Spinning it to a discussion on personal issues just points to a lack of real, factual argument on the actual topic, I'm happy to respond to that spin if you'd prefer.