Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[husaberg]

Yeah I wasn't asking for that, see I can google too...

And nor was the questioned asked of you. I'm sure pritch can answer himself.

You dont want the obvious on record reasons to as why people have said trump was compromised?

So when you said What do you mean by saying 'on record'? you didn't want the actual on record events listed.

Donald Trump Jr., told the global trade publication eTurboNews that Russians were key investors in the Trump Organization’s assets. "And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York,” Trump Jr. said in the interview. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia. There's indeed a lot of money coming for new-builds and resale reflecting a trend in the Russian economy and, of course, the weak dollar versus the ruble."

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, has consulted extensively for pro-Russian former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. He played a key role in orchestrating Yanukovych’s winning election campaign in 2010.

Last summer, the New York Times reported the discovery of “handwritten ledgers show[ing] $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012.” Manafort denied that he worked for the Ukrainian government or the Russian government at any point, but public concerns about inappropriate ties to Russia may have played some role in his decision to quit running Trump’s campaign in August.

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s secretary of state, has more than a 15 years of associations with Vladimir Putin and was the former head of Exxon Mobil’s division in Russia. Doing business with Russia in the Arctic was a massive prospect for Exxon that would’ve personally enriched Tillerson a great deal, and while heading Exxon he vocally opposed US sanctions against the country. His fortunes are no longer tied up in Exxon’s performance — in the run up to taking office, he opted to put the value of his company shares in an independently managed trust. But of course his savvy with Russia’s political and economic elites — and his Russian Order of Friendship award — remain.

[R650R]

Trump defaulted on a loan to Deutchbank. He then sued them. After all that, and rather surprisingly, he went back to Deutchbank for another loan. Deutchbank required guarantors of course, and it is believed that there were one or more Russian oligarchs guaranteed the new loan.

Trump used to call himself "the king of debt" but eventually he had burned through his inheritance and was broke. He then started buying up golf courses and resorts - paying cash. Eric Trump is on record saying that the Trump Organisation could get all of the money it needed from Russia. There is one obvious explanation for this... t.

All of the successful entrepreneurs out there in business utilise debt for success. No one has cash sitting around can of thevmagnitude required to roll high level projects. Cash is a liability for them it could disappear in an instant due to bank failure from other people’s debt s lol
Debt is a powerful tool that we are taught to be afraid of using. People like trump use their negotiation skills to get debt to create assetts. A real asset is something that creates income with very little further effort once created.
However there are plenty of external factors that can interrupt cashflow to service the debt and it all falls over.
Our own govts are masters at using debt to build our vital infrastructures and servicing that debt via our taxes. So in effect we are all operating just like Trump did.....
At least Trump had a few hotels for his efforts where as our debt often just produces a new woke pc govt dept hell bent on making life difficult

[pritch]

All of the successful entrepreneurs out there in business utilise debt for success. No one has cash sitting around can of thevmagnitude required to roll high level projects. Cash is a liability for them it could disappear in an instant due to bank failure from other people’s debt s lol
Debt is a powerful tool that we are taught to be afraid of using. People like trump use their negotiation skills to get debt to create assetts. A real asset is something that creates income with very little further effort once created.
However there are plenty of external factors that can interrupt cashflow to service the debt and it all falls over.
Our own govts are masters at using debt to build our vital infrastructures and servicing that debt via our taxes. So in effect we are all operating just like Trump did.....
At least Trump had a few hotels for his efforts where as our debt often just produces a new woke pc govt dept hell bent on making life difficult

I have to believe that you failed completely to understand what I wrote.

[pritch]

What do you mean by saying 'on record'? I have no interest in the Trump good guy/bad guy argument but I do like to explore peoples claims to see what shapes their opinions and forms the basis of arguments used.

It's from an interview he did with a golf reporter some years ago. This one:

https://www.businessinsider.com/eric...ng-2017-5?op=1


There are many reports refer to this. Previously I hadn't seen any denials but on looking now I see the Daily Mail has a report of a denial.

[onearmedbandit]

It's from an interview he did with a golf reporter some years ago. This one:

https://www.businessinsider.com/eric...ng-2017-5?op=1

From your link -

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia," Eric reportedly said.

Does 'reportedly' qualify as 'on record' now?

[husaberg]

From your link -



Does 'reportedly' qualify as 'on record' now?

Err it was a first hand account from a person who he said it to. Note he reportedly hasn't been sued for libel either.

[F5 Dave]

unsubscribe. Again.

[TheDemonLord]

I have to believe that you failed completely to understand what I wrote.

Someone missed the point, I'm not sure it's R650...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sRTL5xEjHNQ

The above is a short video, it's a comedian who does two characters - one who is merely rich and one who is 'really rich'.

I think the skit highlights the point R650 was making and why Trump having a lot of debt actually makes sense for a Man in his position.

[TheDemonLord]

Err it was a first hand account from a person who he said it to. Note he reportedly hasn't been sued for libel either.

A first hand account of supposedly what someone else said.

e.g. hear-say.

But I want to point something out:

IF the claim is to be believed 100% then here is what you have proved:

Russians have invested in Golf Courses.

Which is an astronomical unit away from what you say you are proving:

Russians influenced Trump in either the election or Policy.

And I again get to say this: Ukraine wasn't invaded under Trump's watch. And normally if you are paying a guy off, you do all your dodgy shit whilst the person you are paying off is in a position of authority.

[sugilite:Me]

I should note - I don't frequent those sites either, for the same reason I don't frequent the Guardian.

But seeing as I don't want to dissapoint:

Sorry mate you did, this is not a list of crazy dems running for elections. You said there would be heaps, but did not produce any? How could I not be disappointed

Sure, the Guardian, however is particularly onerous to read.

The Guardian, however, is perhaps better articulated as "Subjective 'facts'" and "wildly subjective opinion"

Actually, I disagree. The Guardian is not too bad, no where as bad as msnbc (maddow makes me want to puke, same with lemon.). I'm not drawn to cnn or nbc either.

Is this a republican issue or a Mine working in general issue - cause what you've described sounds eerily like Pike River.

Kentucky coal companies lobbied mcconnel to let them dispense with workers rights and the need to pay severance and such. And he gave it to them, which they then exploited. So in this case, yes a republican issue. As for pike river, that was pure bullshit too. Pollies love to let off corporates, it is in their DNA.

As I said, I'm not sold on her, there are some issues where I feel she goes too far beyond the realm of legitimate grievance.

You are dangerously close to becoming a full blown radicalized MAGA. I read this and prior as you supporting most of what she does.

[sugilite:Me]

And I again get to say this: Ukraine wasn't invaded under Trump's watch. And normally if you are paying a guy off, you do all your dodgy shit whilst the person you are paying off is in a position of authority.

Well, you are really rolling this line out a lot of late. Presenting it as if that is the sole reason Putin did not invade earlier. Waging war on another nation will be absolutely fraught with many scenarios and logistics to consider. What Americas response will be will be just one of those factors.
However there is one particular fact that absolutely harpoons your statement - and that is Trumps very own words and actions seen here below.



What an earth about that speech would cause Putin to be fearful and stop an invasion? For the first time in history an American president supported a russian leader over his own many intelligence agencies and he did it on the most public stage possible.

Now you can bleat and whine how Trump had a grievance regarding the CIA, FBI etc. But fully SUPPORTING the russian leader in public at the expense of his own security services is simply unbelievable. It absolutely highlights why you do not install a leader that has an alarming amount of shortcomings both in political/diplomatic skill sets and self control over a paper thin ego.
So yes you can say "Why did Putin not attack Ukraine under Trump?" However, the question is completely frivolous and has no basis of fact in the real World.
Absolutely no way was Putin scared of Trump. Only lost MAGAs think like that.

[pritch]

Someone missed the point, I'm not sure it's R650...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sRTL5xEjHNQ

The above is a short video, it's a comedian who does two characters - one who is merely rich and one who is 'really rich'.

I think the skit highlights the point R650 was making and why Trump having a lot of debt actually makes sense for a Man in his position.

You are right that 650R wasn't the only one. You missed it too.

The point was not that Trump had a lot of debt. That was background, establishing his normal business model. The point is that he was broke then suddenly started paying cash for golf courses. Which in any normal world is impossible. Factor in that no US banks would have anything to do with him. Deutchbank alone would deal with him, even after he had defaulted on a loan and sued them. You could add too that Deutchbank has been fined for money laundering. Then you can draw your own conclusions.

The only certainty is that your conclusions will be different to mine.

[TheDemonLord]

Sorry mate you did, this is not a list of crazy dems running for elections. You said there would be heaps, but did not produce any? How could I not be disappointed

I mean if you want Crazy Dems - AOC and Ilhan Omar are more than enough to satisfy that requirement. As I said though, I don't frequent those sites either.

Actually, I disagree. The Guardian is not too bad, no where as bad as msnbc (maddow makes me want to puke, same with lemon.). I'm not drawn to cnn or nbc either.

The problem is that the Guardian wholeheartedly believes in the Intersectional/Woke world view. That means there are certain a priori positions that it holds (Articles of Faith, if you will) - that means it is incapable of viewing various incidents objectively.

To the point where they will champion the indefensible, so long as it's on their 'side'.

Kentucky coal companies lobbied mcconnel to let them dispense with workers rights and the need to pay severance and such. And he gave it to them, which they then exploited. So in this case, yes a republican issue. As for pike river, that was pure bullshit too. Pollies love to let off corporates, it is in their DNA.

Okay, I'll let you have that one - see how generous am I.

You are dangerously close to becoming a full blown radicalized MAGA. I read this and prior as you supporting most of what she does.

Well, hold up a sec - have I ever quoted or specifically cited her in any argument? I think you'll find that I have not - I've only responded when it's been put to me what I think of her.

I listened to her on the Tim Poole podcast - some of the things she says she did that I happen to agree with:

- Forcing recorded votes in Congress (this has many flow-on effects that I happen to agree with)
- Covid-19 mandates and being opposed to them
- Calls out BLM for being Marxists
- Is opposed to the Woke/intersectional world view
- Advocates Gun Rights

She also has appeared to support a lot of conspiracy theories, which I don't agree with - but I also support their right to be held (see my disagreements with Katman, whilst always championing his right to speak).

MJT is in many ways newtonian 'Equal and opposite re-action' to Wokeism. It's just that despite all the things I disagree with her on, at least she respects my property and individual rights.

[TheDemonLord]

You are right that 650R wasn't the only one. You missed it too.

The point was not that Trump had a lot of debt. That was background, establishing his normal business model. The point is that he was broke then suddenly started paying cash for golf courses. Which in any normal world is impossible. Factor in that no US banks would have anything to do with him. Deutchbank alone would deal with him, even after he had defaulted on a loan and sued them. You could add too that Deutchbank has been fined for money laundering. Then you can draw your own conclusions.

The only certainty is that your conclusions will be differet to mine.

"Broke and suddenly started paying cash for Golf Courses. Which in any normal world is impossible"

Yes, but Trump and any other hyper-rich individual doesn't live in the normal world, do they? Him having minimal liquid assets because all his wealth is tied up in investments isn't the aberration that you are trying to make it out to be.

But let's take everything at your word - it still does not prove the claim that you stated.

[TheDemonLord]

Well, you are really rolling this line out a lot of late. Presenting it as if that is the sole reason Putin did not invade earlier. Waging war on another nation will be absolutely fraught with many scenarios and logistics to consider.

Well for starters it's a fact that everyone can agree on:

Didn't happen under Trump.

And considering that those on the opposite aisle to myself have been bleating since 2016 that Trump is a Russian Puppet - I get to point this out with wild and gay abandon. It does not fit the narrative.

Now, I've put forward my speculation as to why it didn't happen, including Trump being an unpredictable when it comes to Military intervention - who seems to prefer small, but high profile and precision strikes, followed by the offer of a deal, Biden being very much predictable and Biden's handling of Military affairs being the worst in my lifetime.

Whether you agree on those points is up for debate - but the one point that isn't up for debate is the first one: It didn't happen under Trump and therefore it makes no sense to consider Trump a Russian Puppet if the single biggest even in Eastern european geo-politics didn't happen when the so-called 'puppet' was in office.

It's like Bribing the police commissioner, waiting for him to retire and then going on a crime spree - doesn't make sense.

What Americas response will be will be just one of those factors.
However there is one particular fact that absolutely harpoons your statement - and that is Trumps very own words and actions seen here below.

What an earth about that speech would cause Putin to be fearful and stop an invasion? For the first time in history an American president supported a russian leader over his own many intelligence agencies and he did it on the most public stage possible.

Now you can bleat and whine how Trump had a grievance regarding the CIA, FBI etc. But fully SUPPORTING the russian leader in public at the expense of his own security services is simply unbelievable. It absolutely highlights why you do not install a leader that has an alarming amount of shortcomings both in political/diplomatic skill sets and self control over a paper thin ego.

Let me suggest an alternate speculation:

I think I've reference Konstantin Kisin before - but quick recap - he is a Russian-British comedian and Commentator and was on Question Time in March and discussed the Ukraine invasion, as a native Russian speaker - he has certain insights into the Russian mindset, which I've listened to - both on his Podcast Triggernometry but also on the QT clip. It's his insight that I'm using for the following.

So I want to paint you a picture - Imagine you are living next door to an Angry Karen who is constantly just messing with you and you are constantly worried that some day she'll find the excuse she needs to call the Police or the Council and cost you serious time/effort and money.

That's one particular view that Russia has of NATO.

Now imagine that she moves out and someone else moves in who, for the most part, leaves you be - doesn't interfere much - has the occasional loud party and is a bit odd - but otherwise lets you live your life.

Do you feel threatened by this person? Of course not.

Now imagine that person moves out, and Angry Karen moves back in - but not only that, she has arranged for all her Angry Karen friends to be your neighbours... Now the idea of kicking in one of the doors and forcing them to move out doesn't seem so irrational.

I want to be clear - I'm not justifying what Russia has done, I do not support the War and I think the Ukranians are putting up one hell of a fight that will go down in the history books as one of the great patriotic defences of a homeland.

I also feel it's important to try and understand what the reasoning was from Putin's side. My point being - if he gets along with Trump, he doesn't feel as threatened and can relax, whereas with Biden and the encroachment of NATO (which Russia sees as a threat) he's more likely to lash out. Add in the mix what happened in Afghanistan and Putin is emboldened.

So yes you can say "Why did Putin not attack Ukraine under Trump?" However, the question is completely frivolous and has no basis of fact in the real World.
Absolutely no way was Putin scared of Trump. Only lost MAGAs think like that.

It's not frivolous at all:

It undermines an entire narrative that Trump was a Russian Puppet. And considering how that was the basis for a 6 year long campaign of hatred against him, I think it's very pertinent. Furthermore, those same people who vilified him for that and other reasons aren't as scathing as their condemnation of Biden - as you yourself said 'A bit doddery' I think was the phrase.

I'm just loving pointing to the double-standard.

Was Putin scared of Trump? I don't think Scared is the right word. I think Putin was unsure of how Trump would react - it's a 50/50 coin toss between non-intervention (such as when he declined a retaliatory strike because they had only damaged equipment, but the retaliation strike would kill people) and precision assassination missile strikes. It's the difference between going into a fight with someone and knowing you'll most likely get a bit of a blood nose vs not knowing if you are going to win or they are going to pull out a knife and shank you.