ADVERTISEMENT

Run the country like a business

HighStickHarry

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Apr 21, 2006
36,350
45,949
113
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Had this conversation yesterday with a friend of mine. Like everything in business this is a negotiation, with, IMO, the goal to get more buy in from Europeans, in the form of money and troops. This is probably the one area that whatever the Russians say, you can times it by 10 and its probably more likely how they truly feel. The goal here should be to provide a robust defense and massive counter striking capability that what is evident is Western Europe won't be intimidated. Fortunately Poland relies mostly on coal for power, so they aren't as beholden to Russia, for natural gas, like much of Western Europe.

Poland & Russia have always been enemies and sending NATO troops there signals many things to Russia and NATO. We also sent 300 (I think that was the number) Marines to Norway, for 6 months. These are the first foreign troops deployed to Norway since WWII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Relay-600-LI.jpg
 
Or a third option is do whatever Russia says because they have pics of trump and a goat making love.

Lots of smoke coming out that Trump lied about business contacts in Russia. Biff denies any involvement with Russia, as did his son Malfoy.

Wonder what's in those tax returns... why not disclose them?

Where's Manafort? He had some Ukraine, pro-Putin ties that led to him getting fired, didn't he? He has an apartment in Trump tower and as of November was actively involved in the transition. Was there any resolution to the Ukrainian $$$$$$$$$ ?
 
Who gives a shit? Serious question.

The emoluments clause and several million Americans that see compelling circumstantial evidence that Russia and Trump have a compromising relationship. The financial ties of a POTUS to foreign powers were conferred "give a shit" status in the 1790's.

Why wouldn't you care that a POTUS has financial ties with an adversarial foreign power? What's the downside to transparency?
 
The emoluments clause and several million Americans that see compelling circumstantial evidence that Russia and Trump have a compromising relationship. The financial ties of a POTUS to foreign powers were conferred "give a shit" status in the 1790's.

Why wouldn't you care that a POTUS has financial ties with an adversarial foreign power? What's the downside to transparency?
but but what about Hillary?
 
The emoluments clause and several million Americans that see compelling circumstantial evidence that Russia and Trump have a compromising relationship. The financial ties of a POTUS to foreign powers were conferred "give a shit" status in the 1790's.

Why wouldn't you care that a POTUS has financial ties with an adversarial foreign power? What's the downside to transparency?

sleepingatdesk.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
The financial ties of a POTUS to foreign powers were conferred "give a shit" status in the 1790's.

Didn't you... no... Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. It wasn't you who was talking about how irrelevant the 2nd Amendment is in this day and age was it? And now you are referencing 18th century law?

Because, that wouldn't make sense.
 
but but what about Hillary?
Good question. Didn't she have some deal that she pushed through as SAS that gave Putin control over quite a bit of uranium in exchange for cash donations to the Clinton slush fund? I meant charitable slush fund.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Headhunter
Serious answer....I do.

And so do lots of others not in full "give Trump another pass" mode.
I find this amusing given that the majority of the left and most of the MSM had their heads buried in the sand the last eight years regarding Obama.

Even to this day there are media and Democrats claiming the Obama administration was scandal free. That tops anything Trump has been given a pass on.
 
I thought Trump had disclosed his tax returns. The IRS has them. So the law of the land has the information. Now disclosing them to TMZ; nadda. I would think if something was illegal (like folks are interest in) there would be a warrant because after all the taxes have been disclosed to the proper authorities. I would love to see his returns because I can imagine they are quite interesting and complex...and with that would come lots of misunderstanding and speculation because he would be using something other than a short form.
 
I find this amusing given that the majority of the left and most of the MSM had their heads buried in the sand the last eight years regarding Obama.

Even to this day there are media and Democrats claiming the Obama administration was scandal free. That tops anything Trump has been given a pass on.

I'm not a member of the left or the MSM.

And your statement is just justification for continuing to give Trump a pass......behaving exactly like the left.

Just saying.....
 
I will hold Trump accountable when he takes office and his signature means something. Until then, meh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poke2001
I find this conflict of interest stories interesting. Its basically written that if you own anything more than a popsicle stand, then you are likely at risk for confict. Seems like a bunch of politicians wrote a few laws that make it all be impossible for a politician to ever have been anything else.

As for Russia, I'd like for a Dem to tell me how well the last 8 years have worked for us. You ridicule Trump for calling out NATO, but its not like we or NATO actually stepped up when Russia over-reached in the Ukraine. Its not like we (or NATO) or anyone else stepped up when Russia supported Assad in gassing his citizens. Given that the Sergeant Shultz ('I know nothing') Russian diplomacy strategy of the current administration has failed miserably, I'm interested in seeing how a real Russian reset where amicable relations between our countries is possible might actually lead.

As for the Russian hacking, I accept it as business as usual. Heck Snowden (or was this Manning?) showed that we spy/hack our friends including England and Germany. Given the 'less friendly' relations with Russia, I imagine that we are both consistently 'hacking' each other wherever possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poke2001
Who gives a shit? Serious question.
Lets see how long it takes you to turn 180 on this one.

My prediction: his returns will surface when convenient for one of his (or our) adversaries and cause sufficient stink that you will wish they had been dealt with in the election.
 
I find this amusing given that the majority of the left and most of the MSM had their heads buried in the sand the last eight years regarding Obama.

Even to this day there are media and Democrats claiming the Obama administration was scandal free. That tops anything Trump has been given a pass on.

Obama never concealed his taxes or allowed credible doubt that he had conflicting financial interests. His finances were transparent and straight as an arrow.

And yes, outside of republican paranoia and constant screeching about everything he did, he was squeaky clean. The country already misses him, his class, his dignity and his statesmanship. I've never been more proud to have him as potus.
 
As for Russia, I'd like for a Dem to tell me how well the last 8 years have worked for us.

We're not at war and Russian aggression is being met proactively.

Your turn. How has his foreign policy been a failure, outside of not appeasing a Russian tyrant?
 
So the law of the land has the information.

The IRS isn't some super-cop that polices foreign conflicts of interest or 1000 other things. The IRS cant' take his tax returns and disclose them or use them for anything besides taxes. If they ever leaked his tax returns it would be illegal.
 
Obama never concealed his taxes or allowed credible doubt that he had conflicting financial interests. His finances were transparent and straight as an arrow.

And yes, outside of republican paranoia and constant screeching about everything he did, he was squeaky clean. The country already misses him, his class, his dignity and his statesmanship. I've never been more proud to have him as potus.


He was a community organizer and career politician. He had never worked a day in a corporation. So its not exactly apples to apples comparison on the finances.
 
Good question. Didn't she have some deal that she pushed through as SAS that gave Putin control over quite a bit of uranium in exchange for cash donations to the Clinton slush fund? I meant charitable slush fund.
Actually no. There is a Canadian company that held a license to mine uranium in the US (Uranium One), a publicly held company, that operates mining operations around the world in about half dozen countries (they started in S Africa). They hold rights to about 20% of the active uranium mines within the USA.

In 2013, Rosotum, the Russian Nuclear Agency which operates as a company/corporation acquired a 51% stake in Uranium One. As a result, that acquisition had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State (CFIUS), which had been created by Gerald Ford for purposes of reviewing foreign investments in the US.

Here's the membership of CFIUS:
  1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
  2. Department of Justice
  3. Department of Homeland Security
  4. Department of Commerce
  5. Department of Defense
  6. Department of State
  7. Department of Energy
  8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
  9. Office of Science & Technology Policy
  10. Office of Management & Budget
  11. Council of Economic Advisors
  12. National Security Council
  13. National Economic Council
  14. Homeland Security Council
CFIUS has no authority on its own to block or approve anything. They merely investigate and pass on recommendations to the President. And, in fact, the actual participants from each agency is typically a designated representative, not the Cabinet member his/herself. According to reports, ALL of the members of the CFIUS signed off on the deal.

As for the Uranium itself, it cannot be exported under existing US law and is sold and used purely domestically within the US. So, Putin/Russia do NOT get any of the uranium mined in the US.

But what Russia did get by its purchase in Uranium One was ownership of several of the major uranium mining operations in Kazakhstan, which were held by Uranium One. Kazakhstan produces about 41% of ALL the uranium in the world. By contrast the US produces 3.4% of the worlds supply of uranium ore. The Russians weren't after trying to eke out some profit in the US, they were trying to get a cut and control over 41% of the entire world's supply of uranium and there would have been no way for the US to stop that, even if the President and CFIUS could have vetoed the US portion of that deal. The worst that could have happened would have been that Uranium One could have been forced to divest its ownership in the mines it holds rights to within the US.

So despite all outcry, there really isn't much of anything out of the usual in regard to the approval process for the sale of Uranium One's controlling interest by Russia and the assumption that Russia gets it or has control over isn't born by the facts.
 
Lets see how long it takes you to turn 180 on this one.

My prediction: his returns will surface when convenient for one of his (or our) adversaries and cause sufficient stink that you will wish they had been dealt with in the election.

Maybe. You can hope!

It seems like about #845 on the list of things that genuinely concern me about the country and about Trump. So... sorry if that's giving him a pass but I am so fatigued by being told daily what to give a shit about as regards Trump, that I just don't on this.

I am sure he will do something in short order where I can reestablish my libertarian bona fides but I really would like to see what the MF'er can do in the first 100 days without constant harping distractions so I can actually begin to form an opinion that's objective and critical instead of a reflexive 'f*** you' to the crybabies.

I think more people would give a shit about his taxes if every week didn't bring a new failed attempt to smear the guy we just elected. After surviving Russian hookers, this is incredibly boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis
He was a community organizer and career politician. He had never worked a day in a corporation. So its not exactly apples to apples comparison on the finances.

True. Obama still followed precedent of disclosing his taxes so the country wouldn't scratch their head and worry about whether his decisions were all about helping himself financially. Moderate posters on this board are even offended by it.

What other POTUS refused to disclose his taxes? He already lied about his connections to Russia and Putin. He should clear it up. Transparency is so simple. If he doesn't want to be POTUS and stay in business then he needs to do that. POTUS is a full time job.

Why would you defend not disclosing taxes? Tell me the downside.
 
Maybe. You can hope!

It seems like about #845 on the list of things that genuinely concern me about the country and about Trump. So... sorry if that's giving him a pass but I am so fatigued by being told daily what to give a shit about as regards Trump, that I just don't on this.

I am sure he will do something in short order where I can reestablish my libertarian bona fides but I really would like to see what the MF'er can do in the first 100 days without constant harping distractions so I can actually begin to form an opinion that's objective and critical instead of a reflexive 'f*** you' to the crybabies.

I think more people would give a shit about his taxes if every week didn't bring a new failed attempt to smear the guy we just elected. After surviving Russian hookers, this is incredibly boring.

I would like to hear some of these 844 things that genuinely concern you about Trump.

Not the full 844, but some of them.

Or should I wait a hundred days for you to be objective and critical instead of just giving a reflexive "f*** you" to the crybabies.
 
I would like to hear some of these 844 things that genuinely concern you about Trump.

Not the full 844, but some of them.

Or should I wait a hundred days for you to be objective and critical instead of just giving a reflexive "f*** you" to the crybabies.

I think *hope* that you and I are misreading each other's replies. I don't consider you a crybaby, and I assume you don't think I am giving him a pass. 844 is hyperbole, which you damned well know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT