• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

pamak said:
It makes no sense to compare a president's attitude in 2012 BEFORE Russia's intervention in Crimea, Ukraine and the US elections to the attitude of any president in Helsinki when Trump chose to put Putin above all US intelligence services.
Click to expand...

Crimea and the Ukraine are far from the first indications that Obama was soft on Russia. He was cutting the military budget back in 2010, which, it has been argued, may have emboldened Putin.
 
Ouroboros said:
Just to clarify, when you say "operation," you're talking about the hypothesis that Russia organized misinformation to feed to Steele?

If that's the case, I think it can be explained by the fact that the Russians couldn't control when Steele would begin his fact-finding efforts.

The dossier was compiled between June 2016 and December 2016. This was because the DNC wanted whatever dirt they could get prior to the election, and that too is something the Russians could not change, even if they wanted to. Indeed, they would have probably anticipated that the DNC's response to the June 9 meeting at Trump Tower would be to try to prove to the American people that Trump was complicit with Russia. And this is indeed what the DNC did, although, because the proof was so negligible, it didn't hurt Trump's campaign with his base.

To repeat an earlier statement, I think that the Russians could not know who would win, and I believe they probably formulated in advance different courses of action depending on who won the electoral college. If the Russians sincerely wanted to make Trump their pawn, I think they would have been much more circumspect about their contacts with him than meeting with his representatives in Trump Tower.
Click to expand...

I am disputing the hypothesis that Russia organized misinformation to feed to Steele.
In such scenario, if Steele fell victim of the Russian government's misinformation campaign, then the Russian government controlled what Steele was fed.

Your answer that "If that's the case, I think it can be explained by the fact that the Russians couldn't control when Steele would begin his fact-finding efforts" does not really give any good explanation because if the idea is that Steele simply discovered misinformation that was planted by the Russian government way before Steele was hired, then this cannot explain why such misinformation against Trump did not reach his republican opponents when they also used Fusion for opposition research. Sure, Steele was not contracted then by Fusion but if the Russian government was really involved in any such misinformation against Trump at that time, such misinformation would have reached those people who were doing opposition research against Trump.
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros said:
Crimea and the Ukraine are far from the first indications that Obama was soft on Russia. He was cutting the military budget back in 2010, which, it has been argued, may have emboldened Putin.
Click to expand...

What actually is argued is that by not being flexible with the US antiballistic defense near Russia, the US forced the Russians to withdraw from nuclear arms treaties in order to develop their nuclear arsenal to retain their penetrating capabilities against the more advanced US antiballistic defenses, and now the US finds itself in a situation of a new arms race to develop its nuclear weapons. Obama had good reasons to try to avoid such new arms race with his remarks about his "flexibility"

Also, the idea that one is "soft" because he decreases a US military which surpasses in real value (adjusted for cost of living difference) the combined military budgets of all adversaries is just nuts!
 
and to just to remind you about the issue of an expanding NATO missile defense net near Russia

U.S. launches long-awaited missile defense shield - CNNPolitics



Updated 6:46 PM ET, Thu May 12, 2016

The U.S. launched a new ground-based missile defense system in Romania Thursday, sparking fresh tensions with Russia, which quickly blasted the system as a threat to its security.

The system, to be operated by NATO, is getting up and running nearly a decade after the U.S. first announced plans to do so, only to encounter pushback from Russia. The U.S. has long insisted that the shield is directed against rogue states like Iran and not intended to target Moscow's missiles, but Russian officials have slammed the move as an "attempt to destroy the strategic balance" in Europe.

Poland also hosted NATO missile defense facilities..

Recall by the way, that the Soviet Union's agreement for the reunification of Germany was based on the premise that NATO would not try to expand to Eastern Europe.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

It was pretty clear that despite your claims about Obama's "softness," the truth is that his policies challenged vital Russian interests, such as their nuclear capabilities, and such policies were in effect even before Russia's actions in Crimea or its meddling in the US elections. It is just that Obama was trying to challenge as much as he could without provoking a new arms race.

It is therefore obvious that Obama's "flexibility" was more about the flexibility of a US provocation against Russian interests while with Trump it was more about how much Russian provocation the US would accept without disturbing the US-Russian relations
 
Last edited:
bongsaway said:
Facts do not matter to some on the right. Most on the right.
Click to expand...
The owners of the free beacon were no longer employing FusionGPS when they hired Steele...that was Hillary/DNC...to try and make it sound like the RNC was behind Steele is as dishonest as anything I can think of...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
No one in America is selling U to Russia. Not Clinton, Not Trump, not anyone.
Click to expand...
Sorry Oscar, you're just wrong about that...But, since it's a different topic you'll need to start a different thread if you want to re hash that again....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
JustHanging said:
Why do conservatives get the knickers in a knot over this? It's common sense.


Gotta think for a lot of them it's because the POTUS was black eh? Remember when conservatives went off the deep end because the black POTUS used Dijon mustard? :lamo
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the old "you must be racist" trope....how original....:roll:

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Sorry Oscar, you're just wrong about that...But, since it's a different topic you'll need to start a different thread if you want to re hash that again....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I'm just responding to your comment to which yours was a reply to something that was OT.

If you have a problem with it, do not contribute to OT subthreads such as:

What I'm wondering about that, is that if Russia is the giant boogeyman you people say, then why sell ANY uranium to them? And further, what would you folks be saying if Trump had he done this? Hell, y'all lose your minds when people stay in his hotels.
Click to expand...



Foreign diplomats and personel staying in his hotels are done to curry favor with the president. That's a violation of the emoluments clause. Ivanka made a few million last year from Trump Washington DC. Hotel. If that were Hillary, the right would be marching on washington with pitch forks. The hypocrisy of the right is mindbloggling.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
The owners of the free beacon were no longer employing FusionGPS when they hired Steele...that was Hillary/DNC...to try and make it sound like the RNC was behind Steele is as dishonest as anything I can think of...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here. If so, please let me know what it is.

  1. The Free Beacon did nothing wrong in hiring FusionGPS to conduct "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.
  2. Then, when the Free Beacon bailed out, the Republicans nothing wrong in hiring FusionGPS to conduct "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.
  3. Then, when the Republicans bailed out, the Democrats conducted an absolutely horrid "witch hunt" by hiring FusionGPS to conduct so-called "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and even though they didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.

Somehow I have a bit of difficulty in making the leap from Point 2. to Point 3..

Can you fill in the blanks from "did nothing wrong" to "conducted an absolutely horrid 'witch hunt."?
 
dixon01767 said:
Well, except in a roberry the victims money is taken from them, in the case of Podesta and DNC emails, they still have them. And the reporter never asked Trump if a foreign country had stolen emails, would he take them. The question was receiving "information". Information is always good and doesnt interfere with the election process, it enhances it.
Click to expand...
Yup Democrats are all for transparency until they aren't . :lol:
 
SLC said:
Yup Democrats are all for transparency until they aren't . :lol:
Click to expand...

And you can be patriotic and do what's right....until you're not. Ronald Reagan would be turning over in his grave if he could see what the GOP of today has become.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Maybe I'm missing something here. If so, please let me know what it is.

  1. The Free Beacon did nothing wrong in hiring FusionGPS to conduct "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.
  2. Then, when the Free Beacon bailed out, the Republicans nothing wrong in hiring FusionGPS to conduct "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.
  3. Then, when the Republicans bailed out, the Democrats conducted an absolutely horrid "witch hunt" by hiring FusionGPS to conduct so-called "oppo research" on Mr. Trump and even though they didn't know who FusionGPS was using to conduct that research.

Somehow I have a bit of difficulty in making the leap from Point 2. to Point 3..

Can you fill in the blanks from "did nothing wrong" to "conducted an absolutely horrid 'witch hunt."?
Click to expand...

The Republicans never hired Fusion GPS. They made that part up because they knew you would so easily be convinced.
 
pamak said:
I am disputing the hypothesis that Russia organized misinformation to feed to Steele.
In such scenario, if Steele fell victim of the Russian government's misinformation campaign, then the Russian government controlled what Steele was fed.

Your answer that "If that's the case, I think it can be explained by the fact that the Russians couldn't control when Steele would begin his fact-finding efforts" does not really give any good explanation because if the idea is that Steele simply discovered misinformation that was planted by the Russian government way before Steele was hired, then this cannot explain why such misinformation against Trump did not reach his republican opponents when they also used Fusion for opposition research. Sure, Steele was not contracted then by Fusion but if the Russian government was really involved in any such misinformation against Trump at that time, such misinformation would have reached those people who were doing opposition research against Trump.
Click to expand...
More than likely this is how it went down. Steele went to his Russian sources who were really buddies with Putin . They told Putin a useful idiot was offering money for dirt on Trump and Putin gladly provided the Russian disinformation to the useful idiot Steele.
 
pamak said:
I am disputing the hypothesis that Russia organized misinformation to feed to Steele.
In such scenario, if Steele fell victim of the Russian government's misinformation campaign, then the Russian government controlled what Steele was fed.

Your answer that "If that's the case, I think it can be explained by the fact that the Russians couldn't control when Steele would begin his fact-finding efforts" does not really give any good explanation because if the idea is that Steele simply discovered misinformation that was planted by the Russian government way before Steele was hired, then this cannot explain why such misinformation against Trump did not reach his republican opponents when they also used Fusion for opposition research. Sure, Steele was not contracted then by Fusion but if the Russian government was really involved in any such misinformation against Trump at that time, such misinformation would have reached those people who were doing opposition research against Trump.
Click to expand...

The participation of Steele during his employment by the DNC may have been a factor that the Russians felt they could exploit.

Remember, the motivation underlying my hypothesis is that the Russians knew that the DNC was already hyped to investigate Trump the moment his reps met with Russia at the Tower. The DNC was strongly motivated to hurt Trump in any way they could, so giving them misinformation that foments a lot of political chaos could work. But if the RNC gets hold of such misinformation, so what? The Russians supplying the false data can't be sure that the RNC wouldn't just bury the info; couldn't be sure that it would get into the hands of one of Trump's Republican enemies, such as McCain, who actually did participate in some small way in nudging the Dossier along.

I recently read James Clapper's FRONTLINE interview, and I notice that he advances some of the same points you do: the idea that Russia deemed Hillary a greater threat, and that therefore they were throwing their support to Trump. I don't dismiss this possibility completely, but the narrative seems constructed to appeal to the "Hillary got robbed" crowd. (A few members of that crowd even still think Russia successfully hacked the election.) That's why I continue to state that we can't know what the Russians had in mind, and even though they make mistakes as much as any human beings, I think it's equally possible that they engineered this whole brouhaha.
 
SLC said:
More than likely this is how it went down. Steele went to his Russian sources who were really buddies with Putin . They told Putin a useful idiot was offering money for dirt on Trump and Putin gladly provided the Russian disinformation to the useful idiot Steele.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything at all about Steele's sources. But since when has that ever stopped you? Steele saw a crime in progress in reported it whereas Junior sought to exploit a crime for his and his father's personal and political benefit and whatever harm comes from it be dammed. Just so long as they get theirs.
 
pamak said:
What actually is argued is that by not being flexible with the US antiballistic defense near Russia, the US forced the Russians to withdraw from nuclear arms treaties in order to develop their nuclear arsenal to retain their penetrating capabilities against the more advanced US antiballistic defenses, and now the US finds itself in a situation of a new arms race to develop its nuclear weapons. Obama had good reasons to try to avoid such new arms race with his remarks about his "flexibility"

Also, the idea that one is "soft" because he decreases a US military which surpasses in real value (adjusted for cost of living difference) the combined military budgets of all adversaries is just nuts!
Click to expand...

I'm not crazy about the military-industrial complex myself, but since Obama publicly stated that he wanted to "reset" the US's relationship with Russia, it's possible that Russia viewed the dimunition of the budget as a concession. Similarly, Obama's decision to cancel the missile shield program may have been perceived along the same lines in Russia. Certainly Obama's opponents, such as Romney, gave it that characterization.

I said that Obama's "open mike" comment meant no more to me than "Trump kowtowing in Helsinki" because I consider all that sort of thing to be part of political game-playing. The fact that Obama made his comment before the invasions neither explains nor exculpates the nature of the game being played.
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros said:
The participation of Steele during his employment by the DNC may have been a factor that the Russians felt they could exploit.

Remember, the motivation underlying my hypothesis is that the Russians knew that the DNC was already hyped to investigate Trump the moment his reps met with Russia at the Tower. The DNC was strongly motivated to hurt Trump in any way they could, so giving them misinformation that foments a lot of political chaos could work. But if the RNC gets hold of such misinformation, so what? The Russians supplying the false data can't be sure that the RNC wouldn't just bury the info; couldn't be sure that it would get into the hands of one of Trump's Republican enemies, such as McCain, who actually did participate in some small way in nudging the Dossier along.

I recently read James Clapper's FRONTLINE interview, and I notice that he advances some of the same points you do: the idea that Russia deemed Hillary a greater threat, and that therefore they were throwing their support to Trump. I don't dismiss this possibility completely, but the narrative seems constructed to appeal to the "Hillary got robbed" crowd. (A few members of that crowd even still think Russia successfully hacked the election.) That's why I continue to state that we can't know what the Russians had in mind, and even though they make mistakes as much as any human beings, I think it's equally possible that they engineered this whole brouhaha.
Click to expand...

And I said that a logical Russian operative who wanted to spread misinformation at the expense of Trump would not have reason to do so before the election. The maximum disarray would actually come if the misinformation about Trump comes AFTER Trump becomes a president. And in that case, the Russians have BOTH a POTUS who sounded a much better candidate for their geopolitical interests (as I explained before) and also accomplish their goal of creating confusion in politics by spreading misinformation about the most important person in the US politics as opposed to spreading misinformation about a failed presidential candidate.

And no, it does not make sense to believe that the Russians could not be sure that Trump's republican opponents during the primaries would exploit misinformation about a possible compromise against Trump. It sounds very bizarre to believe that the Russians in an attempt to create chaos in US politics would not spread misinformation against Trump during the primaries at a time when TRump's win seemed quite distant, and somehow the Russians decided to undermine Trump when Democrats became interested in Trump, after Trump won the republican nomination and after Trump's chances to win the elections became a real possibility.

All intelligence agencies believe that the Russians made a deliberate effort to help Trump. It is not just Clapper. The Directors who replaced the ones of Obama's administration (who were nominated by Trump and affirmed by a republican controlled Senate) hold the same view and with high confidence.
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros said:
I'm not crazy about the military-industrial complex myself, but since Obama publicly stated that he wanted to "reset" the US's relationship with Russia, it's possible that Russia viewed the dimunition of the budget as a concession. Similarly, Obama's decision to cancel the missile shield program may have been perceived along the same lines in Russia. Certainly Obama's opponents, such as Romney, gave it that characterization.

I said that Obama's "open mike" comment meant no more to me than "Trump kowtowing in Helsinki" because I consider all that sort of thing to be part of political game-playing. The fact that Obama made his comment before the invasions neither explains nor exculpates the nature of the game being played.
Click to expand...

I do not see it in this way. The attempt to "reset" the US relationships with Russian (which at that time was a reasonable policy for any US president) could create hope that the US would reduce its provocations. But as long as NATO was flirting with countries which were supposedly off-limit (based on the agreements for the reunification of Germany) and as long as the Russian nuclear capability was challenged by NATO missile defenses stationed near its borders, I cannot see how a reduction in the US military budget (which still remained higher than the Russian military budget) would be considered a "concession"

Personally, I was against this expansion of missile defense towards countries near Russia because I saw it as an action which could trigger a new arms race since the Russians were forced to take actions to improve their nuclear arsenal which in turn would trigger a US response to improve its nuclear arsenal. And this is exactly what happened and now the Americans accuse the Russians of violating certain treaties when in fact it was the US policies under Bush and Obama which set the stage for the Russian predictable response.

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake - The New York Times



By TERENCE NEILANDEC. 13, 2001


In a move that reflected what he said was "a vastly different world," President Bush formally announced today that the United States was withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972.

Russia termed the move a mistake, but said it did not feel threatened by the decision.
 
pamak said:
And I said that a logical Russian operative who wanted to spread misinformation at the expense of Trump would not have reason to do so before the election. The maximum disarray would actually come if the misinformation about Trump comes AFTER Trump becomes a president. And in that case, the Russians have BOTH a POTUS who sounded a much better candidate for their geopolitical interests (as I explained before) and also accomplish their goal of creating confusion in politics by spreading misinformation about the most important person in the US politics as opposed to spreading misinformation about a failed presidential candidate.

And no, it does not make sense to believe that the Russians could not be sure that Trump's republican opponents during the primaries would exploit misinformation about a possible compromise against Trump. It sounds very bizarre to believe that the Russians in an attempt to create chaos in US politics would not spread misinformation against Trump during the primaries at a time when TRump's win seemed quite distant, and somehow the Russians decided to undermine Trump when Democrats became interested in Trump, after Trump won the republican nomination and after Trump's chances to win the elections became a real possibility.

All intelligence agencies believe that the Russians made a deliberate effort to help Trump. It is not just Clapper. The Directors who replaced the ones of Obama's administration (who were nominated by Trump and affirmed by a republican controlled Senate) hold the same view and with high confidence.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, the purpose of the misinformation is not to be solely at the expense of Trump, but at the expense of the US as a whole. Remember, none of the Steele data was a "smoking gun" as such. Given that none of the data was verified at the time of release, there was nothing in it that would have caused a Trump-voter to change his vote. I don't know how much the average voter even heard about the Steele Dossier during the final months of the campaign, but how could the Dossier hurt Trump if even ideologues like Don Lemon would have to admit that nothing in it was verified?

Again, you find all this incredible because you totally subscribe to the idea that the Russians believed Trump would be better for their "geopolitical interests." I submit that Russia may have wanted you, and intelligence agencies generally, to believe that in order to sow discord. That may well be a reason that Trump failed to show what his critics deemed sufficient "loyalty" to American intelligence sources at Helsinki. Why would he "kowtow" (as Iguanaman put it) to the FBI, given that they were selling, with whatever justification, the narrative that he Trump was a Russian stooge?

Do you, incidentally, see any evidence that Trump has made things better for Russian geopolitical interests?
 
SLC said:
More than likely this is how it went down. Steele went to his Russian sources who were really buddies with Putin . They told Putin a useful idiot was offering money for dirt on Trump and Putin gladly provided the Russian disinformation to the useful idiot Steele.
Click to expand...

not rocket science...and Dems unloaded dossier to John McCain to carry it last 5 yards....glad McCain is not around the Senate any longer...and must be rolling over in his grave knowing Graham is good friends with Trump and even golfs with him.

McCain was POS war Monger
 
pamak said:
I do not see it in this way. The attempt to "reset" the US relationships with Russian (which at that time was a reasonable policy for any US president) could create hope that the US would reduce its provocations. But as long as NATO was flirting with countries which were supposedly off-limit (based on the agreements for the reunification of Germany) and as long as the Russian nuclear capability was challenged by NATO missile defenses stationed near its borders, I cannot see how a reduction in the US military budget (which still remained higher than the Russian military budget) would be considered a "concession"

Personally, I was against this expansion of missile defense towards countries near Russia because I saw it as an action which could trigger a new arms race since the Russians were forced to take actions to improve their nuclear arsenal which in turn would trigger a US response to improve its nuclear arsenal. And this is exactly what happened and now the Americans accuse the Russians of violating certain treaties when in fact it was the US policies under Bush and Obama which set the stage for the Russian predictable response.

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake - The New York Times



By TERENCE NEILANDEC. 13, 2001


In a move that reflected what he said was "a vastly different world," President Bush formally announced today that the United States was withdrawing from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty that it signed with the Soviet Union in 1972.

Russia termed the move a mistake, but said it did not feel threatened by the decision.
Click to expand...

Some of the things Obama did may indeed seem to be the embodiment of sweet reason, but that's not always what discourages dictators from advancing expansionist agendas. If you want to believe that Obama is in no way responsible for Putin ratcheting up his aggression, that's your privilege, and I don't care that much about the argument because we have insufficient evidence about how Putin viewed Obama.

This position is consistent with my expressed opinion that we do not know that much about what Putin views/viewed Trump, but that too many people presume to render that judgment because those people will use any club, strong or weak, to attack Trump.

And so I reiterate that Trump's alleged kowtowing means no more than Obama's "flexibility" remark, in the sense of political gamesmanship.
 
Ouroboros said:
As I've said before, the purpose of the misinformation is not to be solely at the expense of Trump, but at the expense of the US as a whole. Remember, none of the Steele data was a "smoking gun" as such. Given that none of the data was verified at the time of release, there was nothing in it that would have caused a Trump-voter to change his vote. I don't know how much the average voter even heard about the Steele Dossier during the final months of the campaign, but how could the Dossier hurt Trump if even ideologues like Don Lemon would have to admit that nothing in it was verified?

Again, you find all this incredible because you totally subscribe to the idea that the Russians believed Trump would be better for their "geopolitical interests." I submit that Russia may have wanted you, and intelligence agencies generally, to believe that in order to sow discord. That may well be a reason that Trump failed to show what his critics deemed sufficient "loyalty" to American intelligence sources at Helsinki. Why would he "kowtow" (as Iguanaman put it) to the FBI, given that they were selling, with whatever justification, the narrative that he Trump was a Russian stooge?

Do you, incidentally, see any evidence that Trump has made things better for Russian geopolitical interests?
Click to expand...

Yes, big part of my reasoning is based on the idea that Russian geopolitical interests were better served by Trump's politics.
I do not know if Trump made things better for Russians or not. I said in another post, that I do not believe that Trump is just a Russian puppet aiming at improving the Russian interests.

From a Russian perspective the real question they had to evaluate was if they were going to be better with Trump as POTUS or with Hillary. And in 2020, the same question will apply for Trump and his new Democratic opponent. Plus, sometimes it is not just a matter of which choice makes you better but about which choice has the least negative impact on your interests.
 
Ouroboros said:
Some of the things Obama did may indeed seem to be the embodiment of sweet reason, but that's not always what discourages dictators from advancing expansionist agendas. If you want to believe that Obama is in no way responsible for Putin ratcheting up his aggression, that's your privilege, and I don't care that much about the argument because we have insufficient evidence about how Putin viewed Obama.

This position is consistent with my expressed opinion that we do not know that much about what Putin views/viewed Trump, but that too many people presume to render that judgment because those people will use any club, strong or weak, to attack Trump.

And so I reiterate that Trump's alleged kowtowing means no more than Obama's "flexibility" remark, in the sense of political gamesmanship.
Click to expand...

All I did was to explain my position that the difference between Obama's flexibility and Trump's rhetoric about Russia is that the first was about having a US president being flexible with his provocations against Russian interests while the second was about a president being flexible with Russia's provocations against the US interests.
 
Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

SLC said:
Yep we get 7-9% from the US. Ask yourself why the hell are we shipping millions of pounds to Canada then to Europe. Do you want Russia to control US production of Uranium when we don't produce enough?


Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show | TheHill
Click to expand...

Probably because they are more equipped to economically process there. Uranium is a world traded commodity used in electric generation reactors and market prices have been too low to economically process it here. Claiming it is some national security item is disingenuous and dead wrong. If you are against the free market and want Govt. to control our uranium resources just say so. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom