Trump, his Taxes and the Russians

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

You are truly boggling my mind here particularly in light of what I put in bold. Look....nobody here is confused about the basic and general differences between a blog and an article although that line is increasingly blurred as Bengal has clearly pointed out. That is not what I am attempting to challenge you on.

Here is what happened:
I posted a link to a WSJ blog written by Anupreeta Das that was published online on March 20, 2016 at 10:17 ET. Within that blog was a link to a WSJ article. It happens to be the link to the article which YOU used as a legit source and was written by Anupreeta Das, published online on March 20, 2016 at 1:35 ET.

My source is your source! The only difference is that mine is available to the public at no charge. It was not an opinion piece devoid of facts or lacking in grammar. Yours was available to paid subscribers so it likely was longer in length but it was still published by the same author, the same online source (WSJ), on the same day, and within hours of each other. How do you propose to claim that my source is no good because it's a blog when it was written by same person on the same day as YOUR "legitimate" source? Do you not understand that the WSJ likely used the blog piece as a teaser to the article in the hopes that people would agree to pay for an online subscription?

I am not deflecting. I think how you respond very much suggests your ability to truly and successfully approach a debate. It certainly looks like you dismissed my source out of hand simply because it was labeled as a blog, not realizing that it was from the same person who wrote the article that you considered legitimate.

 

this may be the post of the year....

 

thats fucking hilarious. i didnt read it so i wasnt aware. apparently i wasnt the only one.

 

He needs a ladder to get out of that hole.

Well done.

 

NC likes to resort to semantic obfuscation when he is losing

 

I have yet to see any facts to support the idea that he accepted money from Putin. Anything other than that is certainly not illegal and I feel no need to defend him because I'm not a Republican, I'm not a fan of his, and I'm waiting for something other than "HE HAS RUSSIAN TIES." And then.....?

I've already said what a nitwit he is and he should just STFU. He released an official financial filing, not a set of circumstances in an article and narrative. It's easy. Does he have a loan from Amboy Bank or not? The answer is yes so it's clear that there are US banks who do business with him and he is therefore not blackballed. You said Deutsche Bank doesn't do business with him anymore but I proved that was a false claim as well....they gave him a loan in excess of $100M just last year. You seem to confuse my interest in defining the truth as a statement of support. It isn't.

Making things up is what the left has done since Khan took the stage. The story from the left is that Trump insulted their son's service. That never happened. What did happen is that a dead soldier's family used his death for political purposes. They allowed themselves to be used by the DNC in an attempt to create a victim where there was none. I hold their son up as an American hero. His parents in no way deserve anything more than what any other Gold Star families get.....until they showed up most Americans never even knew what a Gold Star family was and that's because they don't trade publicity to get exposure for their losses. The second Khan took the microphone to attack Trump and claim that he had made no sacrifices, he put himself up for ridicule and disdain. I didn't serve in the military but I have served and sacrificed in my own way. If some asshole got up in public, waived the Constitution in my face and told me I hadn't sacrificed, I'd tell him to fuck off. Trump handled it horribly because he's running for POTUS but he did respond the way plenty of us regular folks would.

 

I feel like I'm being e-punked.....it can't be that difficult to understand. Right?

 

I feel the same way about the HRC deal.

 

What difference does it make? You are arguing about who wrote the article while completely ignoring the original purpose of posting the article in the first place: the article clearly states that US banks will no longer lend to Donald Trump. The fact that you posted the blog rather than the article shows that you were trying to keep certain inconvenient details obscured.