Author Topic: The Trump Candidacy  (Read 430215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4350 on: September 13, 2016, 02:23:21 PM »
you obviously didn't follow timeline, those donations were made during her 2008 presidential campaign, before she was tapped to be SOS.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4351 on: September 13, 2016, 02:24:45 PM »
Man what Trump said is a huge story compared to Hillary pay for playing control of 20% of the US's uranium.

pfft.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

His claim was a lot more true than I expected it to be, anyway.

i was expecting a pants-on-fire too

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4352 on: September 13, 2016, 02:27:11 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!


Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4353 on: September 13, 2016, 02:31:39 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4354 on: September 13, 2016, 02:33:52 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

What's it like living in a world where everything fits into, (dare I say) nice little baskets, and no one with clout and the inside track picks up the phone and makes some calls, or calls in some favors, or promises some favors??   I bet the puppy dogs and kitty cats are mega cute there, send pictures.


Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4355 on: September 13, 2016, 02:35:34 PM »
this is only news because it sounds good to Trump low-info-voter base

20% of our uranium to the Russians!

the company in question doesn't even have a license to export. all that sweet, sweet uranium (which is actually an ant-crap amount) is staying in the US of A.

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4356 on: September 13, 2016, 02:38:11 PM »
Could they have believed she was a prohibitive favorite to become president treytarded?
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4357 on: September 13, 2016, 02:38:29 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

What's it like living in a world where everything fits into, (dare I say) nice little baskets, and no one with clout and the inside track picks up the phone and makes some calls, or calls in some favors, or promises some favors??   I bet the puppy dogs and kitty cats are mega cute there, send pictures.

a junior senator bribing 11 entirely different government agencies? get outside dax, the fresh air will do you some good.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4358 on: September 13, 2016, 02:42:03 PM »
this is only news because it sounds good to Trump low-info-voter base

20% of our uranium to the Russians!

the company in question doesn't even have a license to export. all that sweet, sweet uranium (which is actually an ant-crap amount) is staying in the US of A.

Oh that's good news, because ya know, with our borders, shipping methods and various conduits (in and) out of the country being on North Korean style lock down.   We all know, that stuff ain't going anywhere. 


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4359 on: September 13, 2016, 02:42:46 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

What's it like living in a world where everything fits into, (dare I say) nice little baskets, and no one with clout and the inside track picks up the phone and makes some calls, or calls in some favors, or promises some favors??   I bet the puppy dogs and kitty cats are mega cute there, send pictures.

a junior senator bribing 11 entirely different government agencies? get outside dax, the fresh air will do you some good.

Who the eff said anything about bribing?   Go back to your cubicle.  Damn


Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4360 on: September 13, 2016, 02:44:59 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

What's it like living in a world where everything fits into, (dare I say) nice little baskets, and no one with clout and the inside track picks up the phone and makes some calls, or calls in some favors, or promises some favors??   I bet the puppy dogs and kitty cats are mega cute there, send pictures.

a junior senator bribing 11 entirely different government agencies? get outside dax, the fresh air will do you some good.

Infowars people like dax absolutely think that happens
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85189
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4361 on: September 13, 2016, 02:46:12 PM »
I never knew what this thing was about. I mean I assumed it was fear mongering bs but I never knew for sure until now.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4362 on: September 13, 2016, 02:49:43 PM »
Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home.   But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium.   Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . .  but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium?   Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??

What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?

Thanks, and I'll listen on the air. 

 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4363 on: September 13, 2016, 02:51:34 PM »
LOL, she was a U.S. Senator.

Yes, please continue to roll with that theme Trey, it's fantastic!

I must have missed the part where a single senator from NY was one of the 11 gov't bodies required to approve the deal. but no, please, continue to roll with THIS theme because it's equally fantastic.

What's it like living in a world where everything fits into, (dare I say) nice little baskets, and no one with clout and the inside track picks up the phone and makes some calls, or calls in some favors, or promises some favors??   I bet the puppy dogs and kitty cats are mega cute there, send pictures.

a junior senator bribing 11 entirely different government agencies? get outside dax, the fresh air will do you some good.

Infowars people like dax absolutely think that happens

Bribes InfoWARS!!   :curse: :curse: :curse:

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4364 on: September 13, 2016, 02:52:39 PM »
I thought Trump wanted to be friends with Russia. Why is it bad to give 20% of your uranium to your friends? Sounds like a friendly thing to do.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4365 on: September 13, 2016, 03:04:06 PM »
Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home.   But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium.   Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . .  but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium?   Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??

What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?

Thanks, and I'll listen on the air. 

 

well dax, first lets get enrichment for nuclear weapons off the table because it's a moot point. both america and russia have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over

and the second half of your inquiry is a moot point as well because the company in question doesn't have an export license. their only source of income is american nuclear plants. I suppose they could refuse to sell, but that's not how companies make money.

you see where this is going? its a non-factor. if we were so worried about russia choking off our nuclear fuel supply (which we aren't), we could always switch over to thorium reactor technology, of which we have massive deposits.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4366 on: September 13, 2016, 03:07:20 PM »
Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home.   But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium.   Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . .  but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium?   Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??

What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?

Thanks, and I'll listen on the air. 

 

well dax, first lets get enrichment for nuclear weapons off the table because it's a moot point. both america and russia have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over

and the second half of your inquiry is a moot point as well because the company in question doesn't have an export license. their only source of income is american nuclear plants. I suppose they could refuse to sell, but that's not how companies make money.

you see where this is going? its a non-factor. if we were so worried about russia choking off our nuclear fuel supply (which we aren't), we could always switch over to thorium reactor technology, of which we have massive deposits.

Nah, I'm not really "worried" about any of those things, but the Clinton's are historically extremely partial to selling off what most would consider to be vital geo-strategic national (and natural) resources to foreign entities.    Now, if you're cool with that, that's fine, you're an extreme dumbass for thinking like that, but again, that's fine, and dumbasses make the world a more interesting place.


Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4367 on: September 13, 2016, 03:14:54 PM »
Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home.   But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium.   Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . .  but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium?   Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??

What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?

Thanks, and I'll listen on the air. 

 

well dax, first lets get enrichment for nuclear weapons off the table because it's a moot point. both america and russia have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over

and the second half of your inquiry is a moot point as well because the company in question doesn't have an export license. their only source of income is american nuclear plants. I suppose they could refuse to sell, but that's not how companies make money.

you see where this is going? its a non-factor. if we were so worried about russia choking off our nuclear fuel supply (which we aren't), we could always switch over to thorium reactor technology, of which we have massive deposits.

Nah, I'm not really "worried" about any of those things, but the Clinton's are historically extremely partial to selling off what most would consider to be vital geo-strategic national (and natural) resources to foreign entities.    Now, if you're cool with that, that's fine, you're an extreme dumbass for thinking like that, but again, that's fine, and dumbasses make the world a more interesting place.

belief in the overwhelming face of reason. but you do you, dax.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4368 on: September 13, 2016, 03:57:49 PM »
The DNC is threatening to reignate the cold war with russia over conjecture and speculation that "russian hackers" furnished wikileaks with emails evidencing what a sham the DNC is, and you're trying to tell us selling a russian company uranium is no biggie.

Who is making something out of nothing here?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4369 on: September 13, 2016, 04:04:25 PM »
The murdered dnc staffer leaked the stuff to wiki leaks right before he got all murdered up
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21335
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4370 on: September 13, 2016, 04:06:47 PM »
How much cyber could we have built with that nuclear I think is the real question.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52985
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4371 on: September 13, 2016, 04:11:33 PM »
Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home.   But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium.   Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . .  but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium?   Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??

What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?

Thanks, and I'll listen on the air. 

 

well dax, first lets get enrichment for nuclear weapons off the table because it's a moot point. both america and russia have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over

and the second half of your inquiry is a moot point as well because the company in question doesn't have an export license. their only source of income is american nuclear plants. I suppose they could refuse to sell, but that's not how companies make money.

you see where this is going? its a non-factor. if we were so worried about russia choking off our nuclear fuel supply (which we aren't), we could always switch over to thorium reactor technology, of which we have massive deposits.

Nah, I'm not really "worried" about any of those things, but the Clinton's are historically extremely partial to selling off what most would consider to be vital geo-strategic national (and natural) resources to foreign entities.    Now, if you're cool with that, that's fine, you're an extreme dumbass for thinking like that, but again, that's fine, and dumbasses make the world a more interesting place.

belief in the overwhelming face of reason. but you do you, dax.

Wait a second here.   Expressing concern about foreign control of potentially fissionable natural resources (the idea that technically they can't export the material is, well, immaterial) lacks . . . reason.   That, I must say, is, fascinating.   

Only the staunchest Hillbot would attempt  that take.   

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4372 on: September 13, 2016, 04:12:15 PM »
How much cyber could we have built with that nuclear I think is the real question.

"The big one" is the answer to that question.

Offline SkinnyBenny

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16698
  • good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM type
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4373 on: September 13, 2016, 07:27:58 PM »
So dax is, like, a bonafide crazy person, yeah?
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world.  i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time."   --Dlew12

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: The Trump Candidacy
« Reply #4374 on: September 13, 2016, 07:33:56 PM »
Looks like we'll be hearing plenty about the Trump Foundation.