US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9011

On October 18 2017 01:44 Gorsameth wrote:
A Russian living in the US who pretends to be British, believes all EU posters live in Mega Cities and that Eastern Europeans cant integrate into the EU because they didn't accept USSR oppression is the last person anyone is going to take seriously on when it concerns Russia's actions.

Keep on shilling LL, gotta earn that Kremlin paycheck.

On October 18 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:


We shoud copy paste this and just throw it at LL everyime he shows up in the EU tread... Good job

@realityisweirdasfuckforyourself
No news is unbiased but Fox/Breitbard and co. are actively pushing agendas. Thats why they get shit on by everyone not on their page.

On October 18 2017 01:44 Gorsameth wrote:
A Russian living in the US who pretends to be British, believes all EU posters live in Mega Cities and that Eastern Europeans cant integrate into the EU because they didn't accept USSR oppression is the last person anyone is going to take seriously on when it concerns Russia's actions.

Keep on shilling LL, gotta earn that Kremlin paycheck.

On October 18 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:


We shoud copy paste this and just throw it at LL everyime he shows up in the EU tread... Good job

@realityisweirdasfuckforyourself
No news is unbiased but Fox/Breitbard and co. are actively pushing agendas. Thats why they get shit on by everyone not on their page.

On October 18 2017 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Spending money to divide people is 100000000000000000000000000000x easier than spending money to unite people. Presidential campaigns are about inspiring confidence and positive emotions in a candidate. All Russia needed to do was make people fight, be skeptical of each other, and think of each other as other thans. That's a slam dunk and easy as shit. Nothing has to be accurate, dignified or anything. You can really just go balls deep because your only objective is to polarize a population.

On October 18 2017 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Spending money to divide people is 100000000000000000000000000000x easier than spending money to unite people. Presidential campaigns are about inspiring confidence and positive emotions in a candidate. All Russia needed to do was make people fight, be skeptical of each other, and think of each other as other thans. That's a slam dunk and easy as shit. Nothing has to be accurate, dignified or anything. You can really just go balls deep because your only objective is to polarize a population.

On October 18 2017 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:


I never understood why republicans are so mad that the news have an agenda...

The agenda is to keep things the way they are because that helps the people in power. The way things are is a strong democratic party who is quite corporatist and pretends to be the left, and a strong republican party who is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

If the news didn't have this agenda, it would be harsher on your party. You can look at the news from other countries, who I'm sure you'll agree don't have any specific agenda regarding what happens in your politics; do you think they tell us republicans and Trump are awesome or something?

On October 18 2017 02:01 oBlade wrote:

Breitbart never pretended not to have an agenda, which is the key difference here.

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

[...]

On October 18 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:

Have you already forgotten the ads Hillary ran? Seriously, if you can look at them and say her campaign ads were about inspiring confidence and positive emotions, you probably worked for the campaign. It was one of the most negative ad campaigns in my lifetime. She spent hundreds of millions and now we're pretending only Russia could've swayed people towards division. Ridiculous.