• 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!

Sebastian Gorka suggests Hillary Clinton should be tried for treason, executed over Uranium One deal

"We've heard, from numerous administration
spokespeople, that those of us who are raising concerns are
somehow out of place, because, after all, it was a British
company that was engaged in these activities selling to the
Dubai company. For many of us, there is a significant
difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity.
" - Sen. Hillary Clinton

... until the Uranium One deal.

Look, I know for some reason you feel you have to position yourself as a dedicated defender of all things Hillary & Obama. I get that. But using apologist websites as your sources are not the way to learn.

And as for your #135, when you compare funding for the arts to funding for the military it says 2 things.
- assuming you believe what you wrote, it, being nonsensical, does help to explain why you don't understand what you read ... oh, and you're terrible with syllogisms,
- you hope to change the subject because your arguments for the current subject are at a dead end.

The cases you've mentioned are all VERY DIFFERENT. Only someone not very smart, or desperately trying to create a scandal where none exists, pretends that if CFIUS/Hillary opposes one deal they must oppose all other deals when the deals in question present DIFFERENT risks to national security.

If you want to discuss how or why the Uranium One deal threatens our national security, go for it. But bringing up the ports and a mine that was near a tactical aviation training ground for the U.S. military are red herrings, diversions, in place of a reasoned argument against the actual deal in question, which is unique, and therefore the only deal under consideration.

BBBUT the PORT!!! BBBUUUTT the gold mine!! - those are not even in the universe of actual coherent arguments.
 
Never used the "Russia buys mines bad" narrative, so I would thank you not to try and put words in my mouth. Its a foreign country for crying out loud, we have as much say on what they do. As they have on us when we choose to do something that endangers, or outright destroys human life.....
Sorry to interrupt your deflecting (and possibly dishonest) post but you stated we should not have allowed Uranium One to buy some mines because of “what was going on at the time”. It seems you just learned from my post that nothing was going on at the time. So now you seem to be walking back your belief that “Russia buying mines bad” (the possibly dishonest part I mentioned).

So O, if nothing was going on, why was shouldn’t we have allowed the sale? and if you think the sale shouldn't have been approved why cant I paraphrase it as “Russia buying mines bad”. If you want to run with your new “I never said it was bad” narrative then explain why you said we shouldn’t have allowed the sale? And you called it a no-brainer. If it’s a no brainer to have stopped the sale then it should be easy to explain it instead of deflecting.

Its a bit of a no-brainer.

and O, I wasn't looking for your obedient conservative opinion on the birther lies, stimulus lies, death panel lies and of course the vile and disgusting stand down lies. I'm just pointing out you seem to be getting your Uranium One info from the same liars. You should try to understand why you couldn't follow such a clear and simple point.
 
I mentioned both the port and China. She argued against the port deal and voted against the China deal
She was on CFIUS when China was blocked. If you have something that shows she approved of the China deal while on CFIUS you can show it ... but she didn't approve it.
Her quote gave her reasons for arguing against the port deal, and if she meant what she said it would have applied to the ports, China, as well as Uranium One.

Look, I usually don't even reply to anything you write because it's been grade school drivel. I thought I'd give you a chance. You haven't changed.

oh bubba, its not "grade school drivel" to point out how you are dishonestly "massaging" your claim from "she blocked Chinese companies from buying US assets (including a mining business)" to " she was SOS at the time". And you've yet to show any "lack of consistency". Speaking of "grade school drivel", I would call your "some things weren't approved when she was SoS" as proof of a lack of consistency as the epitome of "grade school drivel". Now I'm not calling your "massaging" your posts "grade school drivel" because it was just dishonest.

Bubba, since I don't have an obedient agenda to attack Hillary, I can discern differences between a port and a mineral that you don't control once you mine it. and the port thing doesn't even apply to Hillary. But I guess it does in grade school.
 
Last edited:
The cases you've mentioned are all VERY DIFFERENT. Only someone not very smart, or desperately trying to create a scandal where none exists, pretends that if CFIUS/Hillary opposes one deal they must oppose all other deals when the deals in question present DIFFERENT risks to national security.

If you want to discuss how or why the Uranium One deal threatens our national security, go for it. But bringing up the ports and a mine that was near a tactical aviation training ground for the U.S. military are red herrings, diversions, in place of a reasoned argument against the actual deal in question, which is unique, and therefore the only deal under consideration.

BBBUT the PORT!!! BBBUUUTT the gold mine!! - those are not even in the universe of actual coherent arguments.

For the last time, and I mean it, her reasoned statement as Senator still would apply in her position on CFIUS ... "For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity."

And any desperation is by those trying to muster a partisan defense when there's no legitimate one.
If you have nothing new to try, please don't repeat what we've been over.

By my responses you should have realized by now that I'm very familiar with, and prepared for, any of the various attempts at such defenses.
You get familiar with something when you're interested in the truth and willing to do the research.
 
For the last time, and I mean it, her reasoned statement as Senator still would apply in her position on CFIUS ... "For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity."

And any desperation is by those trying to muster a partisan defense when there's no legitimate one.
If you have nothing new to try, please don't repeat what we've been over.

By my responses you should have realized by now that I'm very familiar with, and prepared for, any of the various attempts at such defenses.
You get familiar with something when you're interested in the truth and willing to do the research.

Sounds good to me. But I'll note that different facts lead reasonable people to different conclusions. In the uranium case, every single entity asked to signed off. Maybe the facts were different than the port or the gold mine? Seems like the most obvious conclusion to me.
 
Sorry to interrupt your deflecting (and possibly dishonest) post but you stated we should not have allowed Uranium One to buy some mines because of “what was going on at the time”. It seems you just learned from my post that nothing was going on at the time. So now you seem to be walking back your belief that “Russia buying mines bad” (the possibly dishonest part I mentioned).

So O, if nothing was going on, why was shouldn’t we have allowed the sale? and if you think the sale shouldn't have been approved why cant I paraphrase it as “Russia buying mines bad”. If you want to run with your new “I never said it was bad” narrative then explain why you said we shouldn’t have allowed the sale? And you called it a no-brainer. If it’s a no brainer to have stopped the sale then it should be easy to explain it instead of deflecting.



and O, I wasn't looking for your obedient conservative opinion on the birther lies, stimulus lies, death panel lies and of course the vile and disgusting stand down lies. I'm just pointing out you seem to be getting your Uranium One info from the same liars. You should try to understand why you couldn't follow such a clear and simple point.

Are you really this dense?
 
Are you really this dense?

O, I responded directly to what you posted. You are not only deflecting with your question, you are also whining about me. Again, you said the deal should not have approved based on “what was going on at the time”. You even called it a “no brainer” to not approve it. Since you found out nothing was going on you’re unable to come up with a reason. So if anything was a “no brainer” it was your obedient flailing at the deal with zero knowledge of what you were posting.

O, this is a debate forum. If you want to post silly and false narratives and not be called out then maybe a debate forum isn’t for you.
 
O, I responded directly to what you posted. You are not only deflecting with your question, you are also whining about me. Again, you said the deal should not have approved based on “what was going on at the time”. You even called it a “no brainer” to not approve it. Since you found out nothing was going on you’re unable to come up with a reason. So if anything was a “no brainer” it was your obedient flailing at the deal with zero knowledge of what you were posting.

O, this is a debate forum. If you want to post silly and false narratives and not be called out then maybe a debate forum isn’t for you.

A simple yes would have done just as well.
 
A simple yes would have done just as well.

O, this is not a chatroom. Its a debate forum and I'm calling out your posts. You are desperately and dishonestly deflecting from addressing my points that prove you have no idea what you were talking about. Why do you think its more important to dishonestly deflect than have integrity? There has to be a reason you and so many conservatives do it. Anyhoo, you said the deal should not have approved based on “what was going on at the time”. You even called it a “no brainer” to not approve it. Since you found out nothing was going on you’re unable to come up with a reason. So if anything was a “no brainer” it was your obedient flailing at the deal with zero knowledge of what you were posting.

and please spare us another chatroom esque "no brainer" response. thanks in advance.
 
Hey O, where'd you go? Its real simple O, when you have to cut and run from your own narratives, it means your narratives are wrong.


Despite Gorka being himself for a few moments, its surprising to see that you are overlooking that he is actually right. Not so much about the possible execution aspect of punishment, but he does have a point that she should be set to stand trial for what she had a part in while she held that position.

Still using him as a source is far more credible then CNN, or The Young Turks at the very least.
 
Hey O, where'd you go? Its real simple O, when you have to cut and run from your own narratives, it means your narratives are wrong.

Because you've proved time, and time again that you don't actually read what is being posted. Instead you just devolve into asking rhetorical questions over, and over all the damn time, and frankly I have better things to do. Then talk to a brick wall for the remained of the week.

Go stalk someone else, or dig up one of the numerous trolls that haunt the basement. I bet one of them could really use the attention.
 
Because you've proved time, and time again that you don't actually read what is being posted. Instead you just devolve into asking rhetorical questions over, and over all the damn time, and frankly I have better things to do. Then talk to a brick wall for the remained of the week.

O, I've responded to exactly what you posted. When someone posts "that's not what I posted" but then doesn't explain what they posted, its just a typical cowardly conservative dodge. O, I’m responding to your own words. Here, read them yourself

"she should be set to stand trial for what she had a part in while she held that position"

"I find it hard to believe that you can't somehow think of another nuclear power having access to such reserves, especially given the amount of tension going on between our two governments at the time was rather strained"

"Its a bit of a no-brainer."

"You know the Obama administration didn't have very good relations with the Russians right? I mean the sanctions, the actions to limit nearly everything they did in or around our country"

You think Hillary should be tried for something. So you clearly believe the "Russia buys mines bad" narrative but oddly you said

"Never used the "Russia buys mines bad" narrative"

Sure looks like you did. And what's the trial for? You obviously think she did something wrong so asking you to explain what the trial is for is not "delving into rhetorical questions". O, you’re just another conservative who obediently posted false conservative narratives and trying to pretend you didn’t. So now you’re trying to cowardly cut and run by whining about me. That only makes you look more foolish.
 
O, I've responded to exactly what you posted. When someone posts "that's not what I posted" but then doesn't explain what they posted, its just a typical cowardly conservative dodge. O, I’m responding to your own words. Here, read them yourself

"she should be set to stand trial for what she had a part in while she held that position"

"I find it hard to believe that you can't somehow think of another nuclear power having access to such reserves, especially given the amount of tension going on between our two governments at the time was rather strained"

"Its a bit of a no-brainer."

"You know the Obama administration didn't have very good relations with the Russians right? I mean the sanctions, the actions to limit nearly everything they did in or around our country"

You think Hillary should be tried for something. So you clearly believe the "Russia buys mines bad" narrative but oddly you said

"Never used the "Russia buys mines bad" narrative"

Sure looks like you did. And what's the trial for? You obviously think she did something wrong so asking you to explain what the trial is for is not "delving into rhetorical questions". O, you’re just another conservative who obediently posted false conservative narratives and trying to pretend you didn’t. So now you’re trying to cowardly cut and run by whining about me. That only makes you look more foolish.

And yet you prove what I said yet again.

I am getting tired of this broken record shtick.
 
And yet you prove what I said yet again.

I am getting tired of this broken record shtick.

I posted your own words. I think you just trying cut and run because you realize you posted crap. when I get the repeated "nuh uh, I didn't say that" with no explanation of what you said or think you said, it comes off like a cowardly dodge. So prove me wrong and explain how I "don't actually read what is being posted" remembering that you thought "Hillary should be on trial" and that there "were sanctions at the time". thanks in advance.
 
I posted your own words. I think you just trying cut and run because you realize you posted crap. when I get the repeated "nuh uh, I didn't say that" with no explanation of what you said or think you said, it comes off like a cowardly dodge. So prove me wrong and explain how I "don't actually read what is being posted" remembering that you thought "Hillary should be on trial" and that there "were sanctions at the time". thanks in advance.

No, I meant what I posted, and the problem I have is that you keep asking the same question, trying to pull some other context from what I have already said.

Your attempts at trying to pull some sad little victory from this is extremely tiring, and is growing akin to cyber stalking.

Go home, I have no candy, nor a panel van.
 
No, I meant what I posted, and the problem I have is that you keep asking the same question, trying to pull some other context from what I have already said.

Your attempts at trying to pull some sad little victory from this is extremely tiring, and is growing akin to cyber stalking.

Go home, I have no candy, nor a panel van.


remember I said " prove me wrong and explain how I "don't actually read what is being posted" remembering that you thought "Hillary should be on trial" and that there "were sanctions at the time". and out comes the double spaced, irrelevant, juvenile, "nuh uh" vague reply. You're not replying to my posts. I'm replying to exactly what you posted. For instance, what question am I asking over and over? (that's a question trying to get you explain your post) I'm not really seeing it because you posted a lot of obedient and false narratives. Lets look at the questions I asked to get more information from you. I'll leave out the rhetorical ones like "hey O, where'd you go?"

what question am I asking over and over?
And what's the trial for?
why shouldn’t we have allowed the sale?
if you think the sale shouldn't have been approved why cant I paraphrase it as “Russia buying mines bad”
O, what was going on at the time? (this was pretty important to your narrative and your answer was false)

And O, people who ask dishonest deflecting questions, really shouldn't whine about legitimate questions concerning their posts.

You know the Obama administration didn't have very good relations with the Russians right?
Are you really this dense?

O, for some reason you thought dishonest deflecting would make the problem of your false rhetoric go away. No O, it only made it worse.
 
No, I meant what I posted, and the problem I have is that you keep asking the same question, trying to pull some other context from what I have already said.

again, what question do I keep asking? other than "what question do I keep asking". thanks in advance
 
Back
Top Bottom