Germstore posted:

It's funny the articles about the Uranium One deal are basically "yes, it's all true, but some of the donations to the clinton foundation were made during her run for president and therefore *magic happens* so it's not true."

kindermord posted:

kindermord posted:

lazorexplosion posted:

So is this guy a comedy blogger or what?

Klyith posted:

I used to like reading his blog for all the modern economics stuff.

I don't think he's going for appointments, he could have gotten one any time. Guy got a loving nobel prize. The summer of bernie just broke him. It was sad to watch.

General Dog posted:

I hope Hillary wins but it's close enough the Republicans keep the House and maybe the Senate and everything basically stays the same. I'm pretty happy with where we're at

kindermord posted:

gently caress the ROW posted:

Germstore posted:

I try to look into both sides of things, but this Uranium One thing's got me like I'm taking crazy pills because the best defense boils down to the investors may have at one point thought they were buying the influence of a future president instead of secretary of state.

Sonofsilversign posted:

is the whole giving political favors to other countries thing in exchange for money not like treason or something? how does no one seems to care about this stuff?

mdm posted:

neoliberalism already has a definition, why do americans think words involving the word liberal don't already have a definition

OMG JC a Bomb! posted:

So apparently she sold ambassadorships for bribes.

Lmao just put D&D on suicide watch fam

Edit: actually the entire DNC did lmao

Spunky Psycho Ho posted:

It is treason. People do care.

The problem is that the concept of a Nation-State is being eroded. The whole crux of this election is Globalism vs Americanism. So people that think "America" is an entity that needs to be preserved would consider that to be treason. But Globalists see countries as secondary powers to the real power system, the Global Corporate/Bank State. So to those people, it's not treason, because the Nation State is impotent to the Global State.

Sonofsilversign posted:

i think the nation state is an outdated concept and technology and industry have made globalism is a necessity in the modern world and that a global state would be the only way to begin to fix the multiple global crises we find ourselves currently in the midst of

while i take your point that independent entities shouldnt wield power comparable to elected government i dont think nationalism is the solution

Spunky Psycho Ho posted:

That's cool until a chinese logging company wants to cut down our national parks and then its like "welp sorry... globalism"

You lose autonomy and authority over your homeland

Sonofsilversign posted:

lol "your homeland" you and i never had authority or autonomy over any land. US companies do that poo poo all the time with no repercussions so what difference does it make if the corporation is based in china?

Spunky Psycho Ho posted:

You don't want to be colonized. It's a bad situation. The further you get from the nexus of power the less control you have. Just because there's been abuses of the system doesn't mean the system should be scrapped. We can work on our problems in our courts.

Sonofsilversign posted:

the sale of nuclear material kinda seems like it should be internationally regulated by the UN

Sonofsilversign posted:

lmao colonized by whom exactly? and corporations own the US courts have you seen the supreme court decisions for the last 30 years?

Spunky Psycho Ho posted:

"Hey corruption has reigned and we're being sold out, might as well let it keep happening, but worse, because it's been happening"

Germstore posted:

I try to look into both sides of things, but this Uranium One thing's got me like I'm taking crazy pills because the best defense boils down to the investors may have at one point thought they were buying the influence of a future president instead of secretary of state.

Sonofsilversign posted:

is the whole giving political favors to other countries thing in exchange for money not like treason or something? how does no one seems to care about this stuff?

Knight posted:

a lot of words

Knight posted:

I'm not sure why you're freaking out about Uranium One, because as far as Crooked Hillary is concerned, it's one of the more wild and unsubstantiated claims where her history of pay-to-play are more clear in other places. The state department, as one of 9 agencies, including independent state and federal nuclear regulators, signed off on a deal to sell uranium. To even start being worried about this you have to eliminate all those players and instead say "Hillary Clinton sold our uranium" which I think you understand the problem with. Throwing money at a politician's charity foundation in hopes that you'll get your sweet uranium deal to pass when the decision depends on 8 other agencies sounds pretty silly, particularly when you're relying on a crystal ball to tell you to throw money at a politician that won't even be appointed to that position until 2 years in the future. (Or maybe they would be hoping she was President? Besides being a gamble, if it worked she would have no direct influence on the decision)

Seriously, Hillary is a broken candidate that wasn't acceptable in 2008, but Uranium One is what sovcits scream about while making armed take overs of wildlife refuges and begging for snacks while screaming "I DO NOT CREATE JOINDER" as they're arrested by French mercenaries disguised as law enforcement. I know the NYT covered it in April but there's a reason it isn't being talked about regularly.
As I said above, because the power she had in the decision is exaggerated and the timing of the donations makes very little sense. The kind of dirty deals Clinton made are unfortunately too common in our government for many of them to comfortably bring up without condemning themselves. (Some of her supporters think her experience with these deals makes her a better candidate )

Germstore posted:

Her agency is the agency that is responsible for the security of the state. If for example the DoE approves it they look at it from the perspective of, well, we have enough uranium for 2000 years at the current rate of usage and with different reactor designs that goes up to 40,000 years, sure go for it. Nuclear regulators may just care about if the uranium can be exported safely. They're all looking at it from the angle they are responsible for. The State Department is the agency that is looking at it from the angle of ARE WE SELLING URANIUM TO A STATE THAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY UNFRIENDLY!?

Sonofsilversign posted:

Germstore posted:

Now to be fair to Clinton the physical uranium can currently not be legally exported, but you'll forgive me if I vote for Trump to make sure it stays that way.

Knight posted:

whose last campaign manager had to step down after finding his name on Russian payroll,