The Trump Candidacy

[puniraptor]

So dax is, like, a bonafide crazy person, yeah?

I think all great DJs are at least more than a little crazy

[treysolid]

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.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

You need to help me out and do the basic minimum for reading comprehension, here.

[sonofdaxjones]

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.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

You need to help me out and do the basic minimum for reading comprehension, here.

First off it is interesting that you brought up reading comprehension considering you started off by saying that I said, or even implied that Clinton's bribed a multitude of government agencies.   Son, bribed??  Pure comedy. 

Again, you can try and redirect, and paint a picture that it's really not that bad and toss one straw man on the fire after another.   But the simple baseline is foreign entities controlling fissionable US natural resources.   Is that really a good idea?  Probably not. 

But as I said, the Clintons are known for selling off control of strategic natural resources to foreign entities in return for what?  Only the FSM knows. 



 

[renocat]

I just saw the Trump ad about the MeanQueen pronouncing hard working average guys as deplorable.  This ad is great.  Trump runs over Hillroy with D9 Cat, and spins it on its tracks on her.  If she is playing sick, she is sick now.  If this was.a calculated statement, then some cutesy smug recent Harvard grad gave her retardable wisdom. She will be on the trail to tomorrow.  Mean and nasty.  That is all she has left. No polices gaining traction.  This is now a referendum on Trump.

[treysolid]

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.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

You need to help me out and do the basic minimum for reading comprehension, here.

First off it is interesting that you brought up reading comprehension considering you started off by saying that I said, or even implied that Clinton's bribed a multitude of government agencies.   Son, bribed??  Pure comedy. 

Again, you can try and redirect, and paint a picture that it's really not that bad and toss one straw man on the fire after another.   But the simple baseline is foreign entities controlling fissionable US natural resources.   Is that really a good idea?  Probably not. 

But as I said, the Clintons are known for selling off control of strategic natural resources to foreign entities in return for what?  Only the FSM knows.

If transferring this company to russian owners was against the interests of the united states government and against the interests of national security, there is no way in hell that she could orchestrate its approval from 11 independent agencies without any kind of quid pro quo.

The only strawmen I'm tossing on the fire are yours.

Once again, Hillary Clinton did not sell off american uranium deposits. The former ownership of the company did. And the gov't approved it. Why? Because it's a routine business transaction involved in restructuring a multinational company that poses no threat to our national security. But because you don't understand our nuclear policy, you've bought into this "nefarious deeds" angle, hook, line and sinker, without doing any research on the topic. You didn't even read the politifact article.

[sonofdaxjones]

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.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

You need to help me out and do the basic minimum for reading comprehension, here.

First off it is interesting that you brought up reading comprehension considering you started off by saying that I said, or even implied that Clinton's bribed a multitude of government agencies.   Son, bribed??  Pure comedy. 

Again, you can try and redirect, and paint a picture that it's really not that bad and toss one straw man on the fire after another.   But the simple baseline is foreign entities controlling fissionable US natural resources.   Is that really a good idea?  Probably not. 

But as I said, the Clintons are known for selling off control of strategic natural resources to foreign entities in return for what?  Only the FSM knows.

If transferring this company to russian owners was against the interests of the united states government and against the interests of national security, there is no way in hell that she could orchestrate its approval from 11 independent agencies without any kind of quid pro quo.

The only strawmen I'm tossing on the fire are yours.

Once again, Hillary Clinton did not sell off american uranium deposits. The former ownership of the company did. And the gov't approved it. Why? Because it's a routine business transaction involved in restructuring a multinational company that poses no threat to our national security. But because you don't understand our nuclear policy, you've bought into this "nefarious deeds" angle, hook, line and sinker, without doing any research on the topic. You didn't even read the politifact article.

You keep trying to drown this in wonkish minutia.   Do all experts agree on our "nuclear policy"?   

I mean if want to to the really big picture we've got a president telling the world to get rid of nuclear weapons.  While brokering a cryptic, utterly shrouded in darkness and possibly foolish nuclear deal with Iran.   The US has spent billions on putting in the industry and mechanisms in place to modernize its nuclear arsenal, and now the Air Force is talking a new ICBM, and a new strategic bomber.  Contradiction much??   That's just the tip of the iceberg. 

Now if you don't want to think the most dubious and diabolical political couple in modern US history, who have gone on a world wide pay for pay spree while operating via proxy (sure) one of the most mysterious non profits in the world (that the FBI wanted to investigate 3 times).   Didn't peddle their influence and extreme understanding of the system in return for contributions, that's cool.  Stupid, but cool. 

[star seed 7]

wonkish minutia 

[sonofdaxjones]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

I've posted this before. Trey aka Another Hilbot didn't read it.

This was published before the NYT went all in on Clinton. 

[treysolid]

why would a bunch of ultra-wealthy canadians pay the clinton foundation (and only the clinton foundation) to approve the sale of their company to russians? what do those rough ridin' canucks have up their (no doubt) plaid sleeves!?

[treysolid]

oh buddy

http://wlos.com/news/local/69-year-old-woman-punched-in-face-outside-rally-by-trump-supporter

[treysolid]

you seem very concerned that "foreign entities control our uranium" but don't seem to care very much that it was a canadian company before it was a russian company.

[sys]

there's a crap ton of uranium in the world, so no one (rational ones) gives a eff who owns any of it.

[Tobias]

wonkish minutia 

oompa loompas

[sonofdaxjones]

Sys:  Totally meaningless relative to the discussion.  What's next?  You advocating Uranium Wars? 

TreyHilbot:  With yet another Strawman.  Face it, you just found out about how deep it all went so you needed to attach yourself to the least relevant fact to make yourself feel better.  A true Hillbot.

[chum1]

Haha

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.

Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/donald-trump-health-dr-oz.html

[steve dave]

[CNS]

I wonder if he will then sit with Ms. Cleo afterward to discuss foreign policy?

[Dugout DickStone]

I wonder if he will then sit with Ms. Cleo afterward to discuss foreign policy?

lol

[8manpick]

I wonder if he will then sit with Ms. Cleo afterward to discuss foreign policy?

#RIP

[ShellShock]

It sounds like Treysolid needs to listen to the Congressional Hearings over all of this so he/she is a more well informed voter.

I've downloaded and listened to all of them and they're not only very interesting, but chalked full of stuff that wasn't even disclosed on the news. Some of Hillary's answers are just shocking and really show how she gave zero F's and just flat out ignored all protocols. It made me 

[steve dave]

Nobody cares about any of that stuff, tho.

[Dugout DickStone]

Nobody cares about any of that stuff, tho.

Not nearly as much as I care about who got pneumonia

[treysolid]

wonkish minutia = don't let these facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

dax, you keep on neglecting the 1/11 aspect of this. if it is really true that hillary has the power and influence necessary to make 10 other government agencies approve a deal that they would all otherwise block, then she'd already be in her second term right now and we'd be looking forward to the Trump/Obama debates. if russian ownership of this company is such a bad thing (hint: it's not), then why do you lay the blame solely at the feet of Hillary and not at the feet of the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of defense, the secretary of justice, the secretary of energy, etc. etc.? i know why, it's because it's inconvenient for your talking points.

[star seed 7]

because infowars probably didn't mention that part

[cfbandyman]

because infowars probably didn't mention that part

Probably