Some U.S. vacationers aboard the ship started chanting “build the wall,” in an obvious reference to U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, Anaximandro wrote on Facebook#in Spanish two weeks ago.
This is so disappointing. You kind of want to see Mexico restrict travel by Americans in response to crap like this.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following User Says Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
This is so disappointing. You kind of want to see Mexico restrict travel by Americans in response to crap like this.
It's more than disappointing though I doubt Mexico restricts anything even if they want to. Over 20 million americans visit every year and they can't turn away that money.
That said, if Trump and the GOP decide to put some sort of tax on Mexican goods to "pay for the wall" how long does it take for Mexico to put in place a visa fee on visitors with american passports and there own tariffs?
So she's not an elected official, but she'll be able to access classified government documents? Sure, why not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
^ To be fair, is it really that weird (besides the Nepotism and lack of title)? Lots of White House staffers aren't elected and have access to classified documents.
Frankly, if she was the puppeteer I think a lot of people would be happy.
She's a business woman, just like her dad, but I don't notice any signs of "mental illness" when she speaks.
New financial document released today by the Ukrainian government shows Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort was laundering money for Russian agents working with president Yanukovych.
Quote:
KIEV, Ukraine — A Ukrainian lawmaker released new financial documents Tuesday allegedly showing that a former campaign chairman for President Trump laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan.
The new documents may revive questions about the ties between the Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014. He is wanted in Ukraine on corruption charges.
Manafort, who worked for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions for nearly a decade, resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with secret payments totaling $12.7 million by Yanukovych’s party. Manafort has denied receiving those, listed in the party’s “black ledger.”
The latest documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The hearing that also touched on Manafort’s work for Yanukovych’s party in Ukraine.
Comey declined to say whether the FBI is coordinating with Ukraine on an investigation of the alleged payments to Manafort.
Hey no biggie, Secretary of state decides not to go to the NATO meeting next month, and instead will go to Russia where Tillerson can hang it out with his buddy who gave him the friendship medal.. Yep nothing to all this Russian stuff, just coincidences.
If Trump is so innocent of Russian involvement and influence, why is literally everyone he's surrounded himself with involved with the Russians? Why is Donald Trump lashing out at everyone about anything and yet Putin is completely immune from Trump criticism?
“It was the Obama administration in 2009 that talked about a reset with Russia and a desire to reset relationships,” he added.
It was Hillary Clinton who signed off on a deal that gave a Russian company one-fifth the U.S.’ uranium supply… Where is the concern on the Hillary Clinton thing?” Spicer urged.
The press secretary castigated Democrats for being “quick to point fingers, and yet when it comes to discussing their own collusion or questions involving their involvement with Russia officials or buy-offs to the Russians, there’s no discussion there.”
“You’ve got to wonder on both sides, where’s the parity when it comes to these types of investigations?” he concluded.
“It was the Obama administration in 2009 that talked about a reset with Russia and a desire to reset relationships,” he added.
It was Hillary Clinton who signed off on a deal that gave a Russian company one-fifth the U.S.’ uranium supply… Where is the concern on the Hillary Clinton thing?” Spicer urged.
The press secretary castigated Democrats for being “quick to point fingers, and yet when it comes to discussing their own collusion or questions involving their involvement with Russia officials or buy-offs to the Russians, there’s no discussion there.”
“You’ve got to wonder on both sides, where’s the parity when it comes to these types of investigations?” he concluded.
“It was the Obama administration in 2009 that talked about a reset with Russia and a desire to reset relationships,” he added.
It was Hillary Clinton who signed off on a deal that gave a Russian company one-fifth the U.S.’ uranium supply… Where is the concern on the Hillary Clinton thing?” Spicer urged.
The press secretary castigated Democrats for being “quick to point fingers, and yet when it comes to discussing their own collusion or questions involving their involvement with Russia officials or buy-offs to the Russians, there’s no discussion there.”
“You’ve got to wonder on both sides, where’s the parity when it comes to these types of investigations?” he concluded.
In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.
May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.
A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City:
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
“It was the Obama administration in 2009 that talked about a reset with Russia and a desire to reset relationships,” he added.
It was Hillary Clinton who signed off on a deal that gave a Russian company one-fifth the U.S.’ uranium supply… Where is the concern on the Hillary Clinton thing?” Spicer urged.
The press secretary castigated Democrats for being “quick to point fingers, and yet when it comes to discussing their own collusion or questions involving their involvement with Russia officials or buy-offs to the Russians, there’s no discussion there.”
“You’ve got to wonder on both sides, where’s the parity when it comes to these types of investigations?” he concluded.
1) The reset was intended to not change the US' principles as Trump intends, but to change the manner in which they dealt with Putin. Ie, a more diplomatic dialog whilst remaining form in principles. Trump thinks Putin is great and everyone kills people so that's ok. The rain for the investigation is The Russians did interfere in the election against Clinton. That is not in question
2) Clinton was one of 9 members (she was not even the chairperson) of the committee that reviewed a deal that saw Rosaprom purchasing 51% of a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One. The committee had no power to "sign off" on the deal. Their only purpose was to review deals concerning materials of national security and refer them to the president if need be.
So basically, Spicer once again invented something (British Wiretapping bullspit, etc)
Do you agree Spicer is a liar now that you know the facts? I suspect you won't answer as it doesn't conform to the worldview you hold
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
In 2014 did Hillary give her "donations" back? Did Russia give the US its Uranium back?
There wasn't any. Most of those donations were at least 3 years before the deal was even proposed. Also, the money went to the Clinton Foundation which she didn't have authority to take or give back
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
In 2014 did Hillary give her "donations" back? Did Russia give the US its Uranium back?
"But what about .... ?!"
"But what about .... ?!"
"But what about .... ?!"
"But what about .... ?!"
"But what about .... ?!"
"But what about .... ?!"
You know that's a Soviet technique right? I guess trickle down only works with the bending over for Russia. It's trickled down all the way to their supporters. Weak people. Sad.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Also, hilarious they have the credulity to ask why there isn't parity for investigation when Trump had crowds changing "lock her up" over email stuff that wasn't illegal and he's doing himself.
There's nothing I'd like to see more than Trump get caught red handed in a Russian money laundering / treason / etc. type scandal and end up in jail.
However from a geopolitical basis, is cooperation with Russia really a bad thing? Do they really need to be the US's mortal enemy? Seems kinda silly when you could just gang up and own the world. Perhaps that's not possible without sacrificing Europe though...
Oh no, an oppressive regime donates money that's then used to treat millions of victims of tropical diseases, buy innovating warmers for a hundred thousands babies that don't need electricity, and help AIDS victims. Oh the humanity.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
There's nothing I'd like to see more than Trump get caught red handed in a Russian money laundering / treason / etc. type scandal and end up in jail.
However from a geopolitical basis, is cooperation with Russia really a bad thing? Do they really need to be the US's mortal enemy? Seems kinda silly when you could just gang up and own the world. Perhaps that's not possible without sacrificing Europe though...
The problem is simply the fact that Putin and the oligarchs run that nation, the corruption and danger they pose to their neighbors and the rest of the world makes any relationship with Russia other than being tough on them absurd.
We have to hit them where it will destabilize Putin's grip on power, and that is his Oligarchs and the Russian economy. Its a pretty tiny economy, and his updating his army and nukes is actually going to be another nail in the coffin for this regime.
Its nice to finally see North American's realize just how dangerous Putin is, this has been pretty common knowledge by the EU and the baltics for well over a decade.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
However from a geopolitical basis, is cooperation with Russia really a bad thing? Do they really need to be the US's mortal enemy?
No, they don't. But with Putin in charge, yes, they do. Along with the rest of the free world.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
There's nothing I'd like to see more than Trump get caught red handed in a Russian money laundering / treason / etc. type scandal and end up in jail.
However from a geopolitical basis, is cooperation with Russia really a bad thing? Do they really need to be the US's mortal enemy? Seems kinda silly when you could just gang up and own the world. Perhaps that's not possible without sacrificing Europe though...
I'm sure it's fine, but be up front about it- It's like you can be married and have friends who are girls, you can but you should tell your wife about it, otherwise she will assume the worst. Trump's on his third wife, he should know this by now.
