Yes because no charities ever stop for any reason besides that they were criminal enterprises.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell apologizes for unverified Trump-Russia report: 'We are retracting...”
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Yes because no charities ever stop for any reason besides that they were criminal enterprises.
LOL...the Clinton Foundation hasn't been shut down, dumbass.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/
You can't say the same for the Trump "Foundation" (personal piggy bank)
Well I'm referring to the heads of the unions not the rank and file.
How about the media oligarchy? Or the Hollywood oligarchy? The educational oligarchy? The scientific oligarchy? I could go on. Maybe those are better examples.
Point is oligarchy simply refers to a select small group of rich and powerful and is not uniquely Russian. At all. If the liberals on here can't admit that the media and the left have brandished this word as weapon against Trump you're not capable of an independent assessment of anything political.
Other phrases I abhor:
'Common sense' gun laws.
'Investments' (taxes)
'Kitchen table' issues
Rich paying their 'fair share'
Those are just a few. They are focus grouped and designed in such a way as to be very vague and phrased to be non polarizing. I mean, who can be against 'common sense'? Problem with all these is specifics. Telll me what gun laws you intend to make. Who are the rich exactly? Who's taxes are going up? The rich to me are simply people making more than me thinks the public. So they use these phrases to gin up support and then when they get power the actual hammer of reality drops. It is patently disingenuous and obfuscatory.
And oligarchs is just the latest example of a word they know most people don't understand or is inflammatory by its very use.
Last edited:
Do all of you know the difference between a Russian meaning a citizen of Russia and the “Russians” meaning a representative of the Russian government. There are no laws forbidding dealings with either especially a private citizen.
They just misplaced the billions that was given to them to go toward rebuilding Haiti.
ol·i·garch
/ˈäləˌɡärk/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: oligarch; plural noun: oligarchs
- 1.
a ruler in an oligarchy. - 2.
(especially in Russia) a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.
Actually, in the Mueller report (and Judge Napolitano on Fox News had some good bits on it as well)
No. But conflicts of interest are, and the Framers of the Constitution were very concerned about it.
Enlighten me because I truly don't know. Has Trump ever had any of his businesses funded by a foreign government? Has Trump had any of his businesses funded by a foreign government since he was elected?
Yep, and he's actually tried to build a tower in Moscow with their support, too.
Again, a 5th grader would understand that is a conflict.
One thing you got right for sure here: You Truly Don't Know (or understand).
OK, please provide a link.
According to wiki, which is a horrible source, but better than you, "Trump was never able to successfully conclude any real estate deals in Russia. However, individual Russians have invested heavily in Trump properties, and following Trump's bankruptcies in the 1990s he borrowed money from Russian sources".
If this is true, then you are wrong about the Russian government funding Trump. I think a 5th grader would understand that if there was no deal, there's no conflict of interest.
Last edited:
Cool. Letters of intent. Now show me a link where Trump actually built something with funding from Russia, or any other foreign government.
I'm starting to think the reason I haven't seen any news reports about it is because it didn't happen.
I'm also starting to think Lawrence O'Donnell uses Joe's Place as a news source.
I would interpret your wiki quote to mean that Russian sources are funding Trump. You seem to conclude the opposite. I'm not sure why. Are you making a fine distinction between a check from the Kremlin directly and a check from a bank owned by Putin and his oligarch friends? Because that seems like a distinction without much difference.
I asked a specific question, and it pertained to any government funding a Trump project. It wasn't vague, and wasn't a question designed to give myself wiggle room later.
I understand your point, and it's valid. It's also moving the goalpost from what Joe's Place claimed. I asked if Trump had ever been funded by a government, or the Russian government. Joe was unequivocal in his response of "yes".
Do you want to have a separate debate about the difference between a government loan, or a bank loan? You won't get much debate from me on that, but that's not the discussion I was having with Joe. He makes a fair claim, I support him. He makes a bogus claim, I challenge it. Unfortunately his bogus claims are all one sided.
Trump is such an idiot, liar, and so on, there's no need to get down to his level and just make up lies. Unfortunately, there are posters here who don't understand this is the internet, and Joe's Place is a horrible news source. Joe just tries to wear people down because he truly believes he's right and won't accept evidence to the contrary. When I feel like it, I'm going to call BS when it's BS.
Fair enough. For my part, I have heard it reported that at least one bank Trump does business with is owned by the Russian government. I don't have the details, and don't really care to do the research, but I'm personally satisfied that Trump is and was entangled with the Kremlin before being elected.
In fairness to natural, he seems to look at a wide variety of sources. It's tough to know what to believe these days. This very thread is about that.
He speculates that Trump's tax returns will only reveal embarrassing information, but then dumps on and ridicules people who "speculate" that Trump has business interests financed by Russians.
If Trump merely adhered to the same disclosure standards (that should be required by law not tradition) that every other major party Presidential candidate has since Nixon, this would not need to be anything that anybody had to "speculate" about.
Thanks for proving my point. Especially doesn't mean solely.
I don't mean to say oligarch is a word used to refer to rich business men and women here. I mean to say it could be as we have the same type of individuals here.
Rich powerful individuals exist everywhere and the left uses this word in a clearly pejorative manner when many of they themselves would meet the definition.
Here is an example sentence. To help you out.
What sounds worse?
Trump has done business with Russian oligarchs.
Trump has done business with the rich and powerful in Russia.
Id submit, to the average American, the first sentence sounds for corrupt and ominous. Yet it shouldnt. Language manipulation as a means to influence. Like many words leftist use. 1%, aristocracy, bourgeois. We have been hearing the same envy for years....
Letters of intent are business deals. The Russians strung him along.
You were delivered what was claimed. Admit it.
Aah,Creek Nation. Are you originally from NW Florida? I was born in the little town of Century when my parents were teachers over there. Pops kept up with a former student for many decades who happened to be Creek.
