|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43533 Posts
On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances.
xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head.
|
Sure the DNC fucked Bernie, but Bernie was apparently perfectly cool with being fucked over too for some strange reasons.
|
On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head.
At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something?
|
|
|
On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something?
This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense.
|
|
|
On November 03 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something? This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense.
You've come pretty close to calling the Trump Russia investigation "nonsense" which does call into question whether the renewed attention on Hillary is partisan.
|
Norway28738 Posts
On November 03 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something? This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense.
He's admitting that Kwark knows more about it than him, not that he has no idea what it is about. Kwark from my impression seems acutely aware of what it is about, so there's no conflict between having some idea and recognizing that Kwark knows more.
|
On November 03 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something? This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense.
First of all, I've admitted no such thing, and second of all, this is the first time you've even posted any specifics whatsoever! My criticism wasn't even based on the Uranium One scandal necessarily being BS, it was on you refusing to make any specific allegations. It was all just "look, we all know Clinton is dirty, and a lot of people online have been talking about how this Uranium One thing looks really, really bad." Asked what bad thing you actually think happened, you either deflect, or fuck off for twenty-four hours and come back pretending nothing happened.
I haven't read your article yet, but I hope it's the start of actually saying something concrete.
|
I don't really get what Donna Brazile is getting out of this
|
On November 03 2017 01:03 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really get what Donna Brazile is getting out of this
False hope of redemption and book sales/appearances.
|
On November 03 2017 01:03 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really get what Donna Brazile is getting out of this
Maybe trying to redeem her image? Sell copies of her book?
|
On November 03 2017 01:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something? This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense. First of all, I've admitted no such thing, and second of all, this is the first time you've even posted any specifics whatsoever! My criticism wasn't even based on the Uranium One scandal necessarily being BS, it was on you refusing to make any specific allegations. It was all just "look, we all know Clinton is dirty, and a lot of people online have been talking about how this Uranium One thing looks really, really bad." Asked what bad thing you actually think happened, you either deflect, or fuck off for twenty-four hours and come back pretending nothing happened. I haven't read your article yet, but I hope it's the start of actually saying something concrete.
I've made it very clear that I am not interested in repeating myself so that others can get up to speed on what's going on regarding a given subject -- particularly when those "other" people have a history of being assholes and arguing in bad faith. I expect people to have certain level of general awareness regarding what is being discussed. Every single article that The Hill has released on Uranium One over the past couple weeks or so has been posted by me or by someone else. The general parameters of the conspiracy (ie what I discussed above) have also been discussed. It should be a surprise to no one who is actually paying attention,
|
On November 03 2017 01:03 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't really get what Donna Brazile is getting out of this
Cutting ties with corruption.
Washing her hands clean.
Would be fun to see if the Dems/Clintons have any dirts on Donna to counterattack.
|
selling book copies sounds very pluasible; this sohuld definitely drum up interest in brazile's book.
getting lots of publicity right before your book comes out makes a lot of sense.
|
United States43533 Posts
On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something?
Okay so basically the US isn't a major uranium producer, and hasn't been for a while. The reason that the idiots pushing this story are always going on about "20% of our uranium supply" (on which note they conveniently forget to include the word domestic in that), and don't talk about actual numbers, is that you can make a very low number sound bigger by expressing it as a percentage of a pretty low number.
In 2015 the US produced around 900 metric tons of Uranium, and imported another 25,900 tons, mostly from Australia and Kazakhstan. It's the 900 that is being used to produce the 20% number, not the 26,800 total. So the claim doesn't make sense on the face of it, the conspiracy theory should be that Hillary sold off 1.3% of the uranium supply. The whole conspiracy is about the export of uranium from a country that does not, in fact, produce a significant amount of uranium.
It's also unclear exactly why it is the domestic uranium that is even the issue. Uranium One has a fuckload of uranium mines in Kazakhstan, which is where (in addition to Australia) all the uranium is mined from. What happened here is that Russia bought a company with a huge number of uranium mines in Kazakhstan and a tiny mine in the US and for some reason a bunch of idiots are freaking out about what will happen if Russia gets their hands on American uranium. Never mind that there is far more Kazakh uranium in the US than there is American uranium. Uranium isn't some secret element, Russia know about it, they're not about to unlock the secrets of the atomic bomb because they got their hands on American uranium.
Oh, another fun fact nested inside xDaunt's article. "In 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 24 percent of the imports came from Kazakhstan and 14 percent came from Russia." There is more Russian uranium in the United States than there is American uranium. Imagine if England had a rule against selling English wine to France. This conspiracy would be like a French attempt to unlock that sweet English wine supply.
But wait, doesn't the article say that some of the uranium went to Canada? It says that a freight company, which was allowed to move uranium, had Uranium One as a client and that the cap on how much uranium they could move was increased from 7,500 tons to 12,000 tons. It's at this point that any sane individual goes "but wait, you said the US only produced 900 tons and that only 20% of that production was bought by the Russians, that's just 180 tons!" Well, I don't have a response to that beyond "yes".
So why were they moving all that uranium? Because uranium gets moved in production. There are only five uranium processing plants, one in the US, one in Canada, one in France, one in China, one in Russia. The answer to the question "why was so much uranium going to and from Canada if not as a part of some conspiracy to get uranium to Russia?" is "because we process uranium (which we imported in the first place, a lot of which from Russia) in Canada".
"But doesn't the article say that they sold 25% of their uranium by book transfer to non-US customers?" It does, and that's unsurprising if you know what uranium is, and what book transfer is. Uranium, as an element, is pretty fungible. Book transfer means selling the rights to a physical asset without actually moving the physical asset. You "sell" a European client a ton of US mined uranium and they collect their ton of uranium from your existing stock of Kazakh mined uranium at the French processing plant. Here is the Trump administration's energy department to explain it to you.2. Uranium is fungible
Uranium at each stage of the fuel cycle is fungible. As long as the basic characteristics like form and
assay are the same, one kilogram of material is essentially the same as any other.8 Accounting
mechanisms allow the ownership of each kilogram of material to be traceable, and they also allow
ownership to be exchanged freely without physically manipulating the material.
A simple example illustrates the types of transaction that this fungibility enables. After U3O8 is
converted into UF6, it will typically be shipped to a specific enrichment facility. If the uranium was
mined and converted in North America, it will typically be sent to an enricher in North America.
However, the purchaser is not necessarily required to purchase enrichment services from the
company whose facility the material is shipped to. Instead, the purchaser may be able to exchange
ownership of an amount of UF6 located at a North American enrichment facility with an equivalent
amount located at a facility in Europe. This is referred to as a “book transfer.” https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/2017%20Secretarial%20Determination%20and%20Analysis%20Public.pdf
I can get into the money and how the guy who is meant to have bribed Hillary was a Canadian who never worked for or owned stock in Uranium One if you like. Or how the alleged bribes rely upon time travel. Or how the Clinton Foundation doesn't make sense as a means of bribery because it's restricted funds that are publicly audited. Or how Hillary wasn't on the committee that approved it. Or how the committee members say they would approve it again if it came up today because it's really not an issue in the eyes of anyone who understands what these things are. But it's not really necessary.
|
The Brazile thing is blood boiling. Confirms what a lot of people suspected and also confirms that Hillary is awful at politics. She might have gotten elected doing that, but she ruined the chances down the board for democrats so her agenda would have had no chance at being implemented. Also confirms DWS was awful and probably a large part of the reason democrats lost 1000+ seats nationally under her.
|
|
|
On November 03 2017 01:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 01:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 03 2017 00:28 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2017 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. xDaunt, you still haven't told us what you think the "Uranium One scandal" is. All you've done is name a company and put the word scandal after it. There hasn't actually been a scandal outside of your head. At least he posted an article this time. You know more about this than me, is anything in that article worth something? This is hilarious. Here you are admitting that you have no idea what Uranium One is about, yet you feel perfectly free to state that everything that I've written about it is nonsense. First of all, I've admitted no such thing, and second of all, this is the first time you've even posted any specifics whatsoever! My criticism wasn't even based on the Uranium One scandal necessarily being BS, it was on you refusing to make any specific allegations. It was all just "look, we all know Clinton is dirty, and a lot of people online have been talking about how this Uranium One thing looks really, really bad." Asked what bad thing you actually think happened, you either deflect, or fuck off for twenty-four hours and come back pretending nothing happened. I haven't read your article yet, but I hope it's the start of actually saying something concrete. I've made it very clear that I am not interested in repeating myself so that others can get up to speed on what's going on regarding a given subject -- particularly when those "other" people have a history of being assholes and arguing in bad faith. I expect people to have certain level of general awareness regarding what is being discussed. Every single article that The Hill has released on Uranium One over the past couple weeks or so has been posted by me or by someone else. The general parameters of the conspiracy (ie what I discussed above) have also been discussed. It should be a surprise to no one who is actually paying attention,
What's the point of a discussion if you assume everybody knows what you're saying without you having to say it? You've been given every opportunity to explain who bribed Clinton to do what and when, but you've chosen instead to assume anyone who doesn't already know who you think bribed Clinton to do what and when must be an asshole arguing in bad faith. Which, from our perspective, looks identical to someone casting dispersions without wanting to offer any actual specifics that can be debunked.
|
Wow. This would severely blow ass for a lot of people. That college interest one in particular is huge. This is directly taking money out of the middle class. what in the god damn world is this pile of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
