Nikki Haley breaks with Trump on Russia, says election meddling is “warfare”

Floridatexan wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American "newspaper" (with associated website) that (obviously) covers mostly financial, business, and investment news. Its op-eds are, similarly, chock-full of Ben Steinery along with numerous denialist hit pieces, astroturf, and mouthing off by bottom-of-the-barrel wingnuts (e.g., Brent Bozell) in a way that makes the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal look like the Daily Worker.

Their editorial cartoons can get very nutty,[1] and their anti-environmentalism can reach astounding heights.[2] At times, they venture into full-on, balls-out conspiracy theory territory when it comes to global warming, including accusing NASA and NOAA of conspiring to manipulate data[3] and fabricated the now popular denialist talking point that James Hansen is a shill for George Soros.[4] (Oh, can't forget Climategate, of course, they were all over that.) This is even less surprising when you notice that they let lobbyists and PR reps for denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and experts for hire like Michael Fumento pen their bullshit all over IBD's pages. There's the other usual anti-environmental nonsense as well, including DDT denial and second-hand smoke denial.

IBD's most infamous op-ed was one that, in trying to make an argument against Obamacare, claimed Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized by the NHS if he lived in Britain. Hawking then replied that he credits the NHS with saving his life. In true IBD fashion, they then issued a "correction" noting that the "implication" in the column that Hawking was not a citizen of the UK had been "fixed."[5] They still post less than-accurate-information on Obamacare to this day.

On personal finance matters, IBD promotes investing using CAN SLIM, a pseudoscientific technical analysis of stocks developed by IBD founder William J. O'Neil. One of the claims frequently found in IBD is that a price graph in a "cup and handle" shape indicates an ideal time to buy a stock.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American "newspaper" (with associated website) that (obviously) covers mostly financial, business, and investment news. Its op-eds are, similarly, chock-full of Ben Steinery along with numerous denialist hit pieces, astroturf, and mouthing off by bottom-of-the-barrel wingnuts (e.g., Brent Bozell) in a way that makes the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal look like the Daily Worker.

Their editorial cartoons can get very nutty,[1] and their anti-environmentalism can reach astounding heights.[2] At times, they venture into full-on, balls-out conspiracy theory territory when it comes to global warming, including accusing NASA and NOAA of conspiring to manipulate data[3] and fabricated the now popular denialist talking point that James Hansen is a shill for George Soros.[4] (Oh, can't forget Climategate, of course, they were all over that.) This is even less surprising when you notice that they let lobbyists and PR reps for denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and experts for hire like Michael Fumento pen their bullshit all over IBD's pages. There's the other usual anti-environmental nonsense as well, including DDT denial and second-hand smoke denial.

IBD's most infamous op-ed was one that, in trying to make an argument against Obamacare, claimed Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized by the NHS if he lived in Britain. Hawking then replied that he credits the NHS with saving his life. In true IBD fashion, they then issued a "correction" noting that the "implication" in the column that Hawking was not a citizen of the UK had been "fixed."[5] They still post less than-accurate-information on Obamacare to this day.

On personal finance matters, IBD promotes investing using CAN SLIM, a pseudoscientific technical analysis of stocks developed by IBD founder William J. O'Neil. One of the claims frequently found in IBD is that a price graph in a "cup and handle" shape indicates an ideal time to buy a stock.

Lol... you started this thread with a salon article and must think that's a reliable source.

Are you really that unaware?

PkrBum wrote:http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-administration-hillary-clinton-covered-up-their-deep-corrupt-ties-to-russia/

Russian Scandal: As the old saying goes, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. That's certainly true with the growing scandal over the Russians' extortion racket in the U.S., possible bribes to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, and the FBI's curious decision not to reveal the Russians' activities and ties to the Obama administration.

This week, IBD discussed new reports from the Daily Caller, The Hill and Circa.com, of how the Russians, through their state nuclear company Rosatom, engaged in a campaign of bribery, extortion, money laundering and racketeering to gain control over U.S. nuclear assets in the private sector.

Aided by an American informant, the FBI gathered a mountain of evidence that showed, for instance, that Russia had corrupted an American uranium trucking company through bribes.

But that was the least of it. As The Hill reported, eyewitness accounts and documents indicate that the Russian nuclear pirates spent millions of dollars to "benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation."

At the time this was happening, Rosatom was seeking to acquire a stake in Canadian-based Uranium One, which then controlled close to 20% of U.S. uranium supplies.

So why would Russian nuclear officials send money to the Clinton Foundation? As we've pointed out, Hillary Clinton was then secretary of state. In that position, she sat on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the panel that decides whether strategic foreign investments such as Rosatom's will be allowed to proceed.

Despite the FBI's evidence of bribery, extortion and racketeering, Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder and other members of the Obama administration approved of Rosatom's takeover of Uranium One.

One hand washes the other. The money flowed, and what remained of the investigation was hushed up. The investigation ran for two years, from 2009 to 2010, and then went quiet, right after CFIUS approved of Rosatom's purchase of Uranium One assets. In 2014, the Justice Department issued a few hand-slaps in what appeared to be major crimes, but that was all. By then, Hillary had already left office, and Holder was about to.

The question, as always, is why?

Well, certainly greed. The Clinton Foundation lined its pockets. By one estimate, it took in $145 million from investors linked to Uranium One.

But there was also politics. President Obama, despite his rocky political beginnings in 2009, remained popular with average Americans. He wanted a legacy of success, and knew that Hillary Clinton could help ensure that.

But Clinton, his presumed successor, had to appear clean if she had any hope of being elected president herself. So a blanket of silence was thrown over the whole criminal enterprise.

Unfortunately, it goes even deeper than that.

As we wrote in 2016, based on Peter Schweizer's well-documented book, "Clinton Cash," Clinton and her associates were deeply involved with the Russians on many levels. That's what makes her recent protestations about being cheated out of the presidency by a Russian-Trump conspiracy so laughable.

Hillary Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta, served on the board of a small Russian energy company, Joule Unlimited, along with Russian officials. It took in $35 million from a Russian government fund, of course linked to Vladimir Putin. That money came just two months after Podesta joined the board.

Podesta's own Center for American Progress took in $5.25 million from the Sea Change Foundation from 2009 to 2013. What was the Sea Change Foundation? A somewhat questionable group that received a chunk of cash from a Bermuda-based group called Klein Ltd., which appears to have ties to the Russians.

Didn't know that? Neither the Democrats nor media bothered to tell you.

Nor did Podesta. He was required by law to inform the government of that relationship, but it slipped his mind.

But even more troubling is the fact that Hillary Clinton recruited U.S. high-tech biggies such as Google, Cisco and Intel to help Russia set up a high-tech hub under the questionable auspices of the Russian Skoldovo foundation.

That group seems to have been set up by Putin-crony and Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg explicitly for the purpose of sending advanced U.S. technology to Skoldovo, a kind of Russian Silicon Valley that Putin wanted built.

But its aims weren't altruistic.

Of the 28 U.S., European and Russian firms that took part in that effort, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

FBI Assistant Special Agent Lucia Ziobro in 2014 sent a letter to those private U.S. companies taking part, which stated: "The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by the government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from companies."

If Hillary Clinton's State Department ever objected to this arrangement, we're unaware of it.

There's of course much more. We've written on it extensively, following the lead of many diligent news organizations that have worked hard to uncover the details. But, curiously, the mainstream media remain mum, or report only perfunctorily on the details.

The fact is, as we've said repeatedly, there is a Russian scandal of epic proportions, one involving bribery, racketeering, money laundering, extortion and control of the nation's nuclear assets.

But, no, it doesn't involve Donald Trump. It involves the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and President Obama, under whose administration the Russians felt emboldened to openly give money to government officials and their allies to gain favors and control over a vital national security resource.

Given all this, it's time to end the farcical investigation currently being conducted by Robert Mueller. A new investigation should be started of the very probable violations of the law committed by the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor the Democratic Party have been forthcoming on this troubling dalliance with a country that has never been friendly to the U.S., and which even today has nuclear weapons pointed in our direction. It's time that the Justice Department and Congress get to the bottom of this.

Wordslinger wrote:


Just what is Pkrdumb's point?  Anyone?  Crickets?  

PkrBum wrote:http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356778-time-for-jeff-sessions-to-stop-giving-hillary-clinton-a-pass-on-russia

The Obama administration was clearly looking to make the reset of U.S.-Russia relations one of its top foreign policy success stories for the 2012 reelection campaign. If the Robert Mueller-led FBI corruption investigation was made public at the time, the uranium deal could have gone sideways, and the Russia reset would have been ridiculed as a silly idea by a naive administration.

When President Obama belittled Mitt Romney at a 2012 presidential debate for calling Russia our top foreign policy threat, it made clear that Obama and Clinton had a lot riding on their Russian gamble. Now we’ve learned through The Hill reporting that a key FBI informant in the Russian corruption case was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from testifying before Congress. This individual must now be cleared to tell his story to congressional investigators without delay.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356778-time-for-jeff-sessions-to-stop-giving-hillary-clinton-a-pass-on-russia

The Obama administration was clearly looking to make the reset of U.S.-Russia relations one of its top foreign policy success stories for the 2012 reelection campaign. If the Robert Mueller-led FBI corruption investigation was made public at the time, the uranium deal could have gone sideways, and the Russia reset would have been ridiculed as a silly idea by a naive administration.

When President Obama belittled Mitt Romney at a 2012 presidential debate for calling Russia our top foreign policy threat, it made clear that Obama and Clinton had a lot riding on their Russian gamble. Now we’ve learned through The Hill reporting that a key FBI informant in the Russian corruption case was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from testifying before Congress. This individual must now be cleared to tell his story to congressional investigators without delay.

Listen up Pkrbum:  you desperately need to consider that Russia's goal was neither to support the democrats or republicans.  You keep trying to somehow justify what Trump has done and is doing, because of alleged wrong doings by Clinton or Obama.  Wake-up.  Putin doesn't give a damn whether democrats or republicans are in power.  His goal is to eviscerate our government, our national political stability, and our ability to pull together as a nation.  Thanks to people like you, he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams!  Why am I not surprised?

zsomething wrote:If there was a block button on this thing I'd recommend we all used it, but, since there's not, it's probably a good idea just to start not acknowledging the distractions.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American "newspaper" (with associated website) that (obviously) covers mostly financial, business, and investment news. Its op-eds are, similarly, chock-full of Ben Steinery along with numerous denialist hit pieces, astroturf, and mouthing off by bottom-of-the-barrel wingnuts (e.g., Brent Bozell) in a way that makes the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal look like the Daily Worker.

Their editorial cartoons can get very nutty,[1] and their anti-environmentalism can reach astounding heights.[2] At times, they venture into full-on, balls-out conspiracy theory territory when it comes to global warming, including accusing NASA and NOAA of conspiring to manipulate data[3] and fabricated the now popular denialist talking point that James Hansen is a shill for George Soros.[4] (Oh, can't forget Climategate, of course, they were all over that.) This is even less surprising when you notice that they let lobbyists and PR reps for denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and experts for hire like Michael Fumento pen their bullshit all over IBD's pages. There's the other usual anti-environmental nonsense as well, including DDT denial and second-hand smoke denial.

IBD's most infamous op-ed was one that, in trying to make an argument against Obamacare, claimed Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized by the NHS if he lived in Britain. Hawking then replied that he credits the NHS with saving his life. In true IBD fashion, they then issued a "correction" noting that the "implication" in the column that Hawking was not a citizen of the UK had been "fixed."[5] They still post less than-accurate-information on Obamacare to this day.

On personal finance matters, IBD promotes investing using CAN SLIM, a pseudoscientific technical analysis of stocks developed by IBD founder William J. O'Neil. One of the claims frequently found in IBD is that a price graph in a "cup and handle" shape indicates an ideal time to buy a stock.

Lol... you started this thread with a salon article and must think that's a reliable source.

Are you really that unaware?

I'm aware that what I posted is a news article...what you posted is commonly known as spin.

RealLindaL wrote:

zsomething wrote:If there was a block button on this thing I'd recommend we all used it, but, since there's not, it's probably a good idea just to start not acknowledging the distractions.

No block button per se, but if you click on a member's name to bring up his profile, then click on "Add to my foes list" on the upper right of that page, doesn't this block him?  I've never done it,  but have wondered about it.  

In any event, z, I haven't thanked you lately for your terrific, spot-on posts, which, aside from ringing true, also happen to be far more readable than most.   Loved your Cindy-Cindy-Cindy analogy, for example.  

Just hope you don't use your skills against me.  Ha.

gatorfan wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Investor%27s_Business_Daily

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) is an American "newspaper" (with associated website) that (obviously) covers mostly financial, business, and investment news. Its op-eds are, similarly, chock-full of Ben Steinery along with numerous denialist hit pieces, astroturf, and mouthing off by bottom-of-the-barrel wingnuts (e.g., Brent Bozell) in a way that makes the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal look like the Daily Worker.

Their editorial cartoons can get very nutty,[1] and their anti-environmentalism can reach astounding heights.[2] At times, they venture into full-on, balls-out conspiracy theory territory when it comes to global warming, including accusing NASA and NOAA of conspiring to manipulate data[3] and fabricated the now popular denialist talking point that James Hansen is a shill for George Soros.[4] (Oh, can't forget Climategate, of course, they were all over that.) This is even less surprising when you notice that they let lobbyists and PR reps for denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and experts for hire like Michael Fumento pen their bullshit all over IBD's pages. There's the other usual anti-environmental nonsense as well, including DDT denial and second-hand smoke denial.

IBD's most infamous op-ed was one that, in trying to make an argument against Obamacare, claimed Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized by the NHS if he lived in Britain. Hawking then replied that he credits the NHS with saving his life. In true IBD fashion, they then issued a "correction" noting that the "implication" in the column that Hawking was not a citizen of the UK had been "fixed."[5] They still post less than-accurate-information on Obamacare to this day.

On personal finance matters, IBD promotes investing using CAN SLIM, a pseudoscientific technical analysis of stocks developed by IBD founder William J. O'Neil. One of the claims frequently found in IBD is that a price graph in a "cup and handle" shape indicates an ideal time to buy a stock.

Lol... you started this thread with a salon article and must think that's a reliable source.

Are you really that unaware?

I'm aware that what I posted is a news article...what you posted is commonly known as spin.

LOL! "Salon" is a left wing biased entity and always has been.

"Salon (website) Salon is an American news and opinion website created by David Talbot in 1995. ... It focuses on U.S. politics, culture, and current events from a politically progressive or left-wing perspective."

Talk about spin.......

zsomething wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

zsomething wrote:If there was a block button on this thing I'd recommend we all used it, but, since there's not, it's probably a good idea just to start not acknowledging the distractions.

No block button per se, but if you click on a member's name to bring up his profile, then click on "Add to my foes list" on the upper right of that page, doesn't this block him?  I've never done it,  but have wondered about it.  

In any event, z, I haven't thanked you lately for your terrific, spot-on posts, which, aside from ringing true, also happen to be far more readable than most.   Loved your Cindy-Cindy-Cindy analogy, for example.  

Just hope you don't use your skills against me.  Ha.

Thanks!     I didn't know about the foes list, but I just tried it, and, yep, it blocks 'im!   That'll come in handy. I'm sure I won't be missing anything that isn't entirely worth missing.  I like opposing viewpoints, but when they're just dumb and irrelevant to the topic, they're not of any use.  It's like trying to get a recipe from somebody while a child's trying to put their hand over the person's mouth and screaming "NO NO NO!  I WANNA TALK ABOUT STAR WARS!"  

Now, if everybody'd just do it, it'd be like somebody took the crying baby away from the table and we could all get more done.

Telstar wrote:

zsomething wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

zsomething wrote:If there was a block button on this thing I'd recommend we all used it, but, since there's not, it's probably a good idea just to start not acknowledging the distractions.

No block button per se, but if you click on a member's name to bring up his profile, then click on "Add to my foes list" on the upper right of that page, doesn't this block him?  I've never done it,  but have wondered about it.  

In any event, z, I haven't thanked you lately for your terrific, spot-on posts, which, aside from ringing true, also happen to be far more readable than most.   Loved your Cindy-Cindy-Cindy analogy, for example.  

Just hope you don't use your skills against me.  Ha.

Thanks!     I didn't know about the foes list, but I just tried it, and, yep, it blocks 'im!   That'll come in handy. I'm sure I won't be missing anything that isn't entirely worth missing.  I like opposing viewpoints, but when they're just dumb and irrelevant to the topic, they're not of any use.  It's like trying to get a recipe from somebody while a child's trying to put their hand over the person's mouth and screaming "NO NO NO!  I WANNA TALK ABOUT STAR WARS!"  

Now, if everybody'd just do it, it'd be like somebody took the crying baby away from the table and we could all get more done.

Sounds like a good plan, easier than starting a poll.

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Sounds like a good plan, easier than starting a poll.

But then you'd need a poll to find out how many actually blocked him.