DescentBB

well, George Will suggests that Trumps taxes will show a deep involvement with Putin's Russian buddies. Two days ago, I heard from a friend in the financial district in NYC who said as much, because there is no one in the US or even western Europe who will invest or lend to a Trump venture at this point. This one is going to have legs, and is yet more evidence that Trumps baggage hasn't even been unloaded yet.

Meanwhile we are waiting for some more details about the Clinton Foundation.

such as?

callmeslick wrote:such as?

Mind you, I'm not defending tax dodger Trump, but.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/t ... cks-224178

tunnelcat wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html

Since you never pay attention, I already debunked the Russian uranium story in another thread. The Clintons did not sell uranium to Russians. Neither The Clinton Foundation, nor the State Department can authorize the sale of uranium. Also, the uranium went never left the United States because the company that bought it is based in the United States. It is part of a franchise that was founded as a joint venture between a Russian company and one from Kazakhstan. The uranium is for medical use and benefits people here in the United States. IT'S A GOOD THING.

Perhaps. Like all "scandals" Clinton though, there's no proof of any quid pro quo.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-got-pai/

But she sure expects to be paid a lot of money for just a making a speech. Makes you wonder what those people are expecting for in return other than her flapping her gums.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... bout-bill/

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca ... mpany.html

Since you never pay attention, I already debunked the Russian uranium story in another thread. The Clintons did not sell uranium to Russians. Neither The Clinton Foundation, nor the State Department can authorize the sale of uranium. Also, the uranium went never left the United States because the company that bought it is based in the United States. It is part of a franchise that was founded as a joint venture between a Russian company and one from Kazakhstan. The uranium is for medical use and benefits people here in the United States. IT'S A GOOD THING.

So vision you know more about this than a pair of NYT reporters. You also might want to read a NPR interview:

BECKER: Yeah. Multiple agencies had to sign off on this including the State Department. And why that's interesting is that the men who had built and financed this company behind this deal were some of Bill Clinton's biggest donors, and one man, the chairman of the company, had donated, we found, 2.35 million dollars in donations that the Clinton Foundation had failed to disclose.

callmeslick wrote:such as?

Pretty much anything will be interesting.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... oundation/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/news/cl ... oundation/
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... zNwyBWDFHw
http://charlesortel.com/a-deep-dive-int ... d-in-haiti

I'm not concerned about Trumps past involvement w/ the Russians (how he handles them in case he makes it into office is the important part here.) I find it quite concerning if there is active smoke-screening on a grant scale happening around the financial ties of a career politician.

the issue, Grendel, is NOT Trump's past dealings. It is the very real present, in which he is, according to many reports, in deep, deep, deeeeeeeep debt to several Russian oligarchs and the Saudi sovereign family. This came about because NO ONE in the western world will lend him money at this point, nor invest in any of his projects. The NY Daily News is starting an investigative effort into whether his run for President is an attempt to avoid the full payment of those debts. Stay tuned, this may get fun.

Ah, more speculation by slick. Let us know when you have something solid to fantasize about.

woodchip wrote:So vision you know more about this than a pair of NYT reporters. You also might want to read a NPR interview:

Again, I already debunked it. The State Department alone cannot authorize the sale of uranium. It doesn't matter who owns the company. The transaction benefits Americans. If it does leave the US as a medical product than it becomes one of our exports and we make money. I cannot for the life of me see a conspiracy, only capitalism. Take your uneducated delusions elsewhere.

callmeslick wrote:the issue, Grendel, is NOT Trump's past dealings. It is the very real present, in which he is, according to many reports, in deep, deep, deeeeeeeep debt to several Russian oligarchs and the Saudi sovereign family. This came about because NO ONE in the western world will lend him money at this point, nor invest in any of his projects. The NY Daily News is starting an investigative effort into whether his run for President is an attempt to avoid the full payment of those debts. Stay tuned, this may get fun.

Fair enough. More details on both candidates is a must.

I'm rather sure this one will be fleshed out in the coming weeks. Given the NYDN dislike for Trump, savvy voters will follow the facts and not merely accept the Daily News' verbatim.

Yeah, but what about the rest of the country?

callmeslick wrote:I'm rather sure this one will be fleshed out in the coming weeks. Given the NYDN dislike for Trump, savvy voters will follow the facts and not merely accept the Daily News' verbatim.

There are not a lot of savvy voters as you would define them.

http://www.gopocalypse.org/heres-why-a- ... g-for-him/

hmmmmm.

callmeslick wrote:hmmmmm.

It's actually much worse for Trump in some ways. As we all learned from the Ron Paul Revolution, a strong on-line presence does not necessarily translate to support on the ground. Mitt Romney's campaign showed how the echo chamber can create a false sense of support. In addition to these alleged Russian accounts, some on-line Trump supporters won't be voting for him because they live in other countries (but still contribute to the inflated sense of support). And even worse than that is some of the on-line support for both Trump and Clinton are robots. Programs designed to post generic pro-candidate message everywhere they can. And like I mentioned months ago there is a chunk of Trump supporters who simply do it because they think it's funny and have no intention of voting for him. It's a mess.

And we could say the same for Hillary supporters.

I'm going to post Princeton's electoral college histogram as a thread unto itself for all to follow. Today's histogram shows that Trump now has exactly ZERO chance to win.