Donald Trump

Matthewfalle

PhilipPirrip wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Korea Aerospace Industries say it paid Michael Cohen's company $150,000 for “legal consulting concerning accounting standards on production costs”.

Now we know that he wasn't providing any professional legal service but money paid to the shell company was for access to the president;

"An official with one of those companies, who requested anonymity to speak openly, was more blunt. The official said Cohen “was promising access to Trump and members of the administration, positioning himself as a lobbyist.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 3b2c8ffe23

Like Trump, Cohen is nothing more than a shyster always looking to scam people.

Aren't all lawyers? said MF when this was read to him.

robert88

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

... Nice country though and nice people - I've been there twice. Interesting that given the amount of sanctions they still trade dollars and operate pc's with MS op systems and office app - and sell oil. In the past the sanctions have been fake. Now they are going to be real.

It is extraordinary how little understanding there is of the international nature of business. It is not a 21st century characteristic, it goes much further back. Many European companies have interests and investment in Iran; Iran has a stake in many companies that are not overtly Iranian. Obviously the same is true with regard to the US.

The idea that sanctions are simple and painless and cost-free is a very ignorant one. Trump is a very ignorant, ego-centric President.

As regards the supporters of Trump's move, one is undoubtedly, indisputably Saudi Arabia. Remember that SA is a cheerleader for Wahabbism, a nasty and extreme religious sect that is rejected by most of the Muslim world. SA uses its wealth and influence to promote Wahabbism. Both the US and the UK governments know this:

The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades the capital Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsher, intolerant Wahhabism. (as of 2017 changes to Saudi religious policy by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman have led some to suggest that "Islamists throughout the world will have to follow suit or risk winding up on the wrong side of orthodoxy".)

You say the Iranians 'are nice people' which tallies with what I have been told by relatives of mine who visited the country themselves; how nice would they be if they were converted to extremism?

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

Trump: Taking Iraq's Oil Would Boost US Economy

PhilipPirrip

Matthewfalle wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Korea Aerospace Industries say it paid Michael Cohen's company $150,000 for “legal consulting concerning accounting standards on production costs”.

Now we know that he wasn't providing any professional legal service but money paid to the shell company was for access to the president;

"An official with one of those companies, who requested anonymity to speak openly, was more blunt. The official said Cohen “was promising access to Trump and members of the administration, positioning himself as a lobbyist.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 3b2c8ffe23

Like Trump, Cohen is nothing more than a shyster always looking to scam people.

Aren't all lawyers? said MF when this was read to him.

Is Cohen a real lawyer?

Did he get his qualifications online, at Trump University or is he just a fan of Better Call Saul?

FishFish

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

You say the Iranians 'are nice people' which tallies with what I have been told by relatives of mine who visited the country themselves; how nice would they be if they were converted to extremism?

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

The Iranians are nice people and if they became nasty they would be nasty people. I think you miss the point. The people will never change but the state can change and it will kill other 'nice' people.

And of course Trump has his eye on the oil - as did Britain - in the last moments of the Empire when it sorted out the Emirates and Trucial States - on the basis or establishing alliances within oil states. And in supporting the Shah of Iran who was deposed with American support.

But in the background there is also Israel goading and prompting all sides and uterly irritating the USA who can do very littel because they are a good customer.

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

tailwindhome

Andrew Neil
‏
Verified account

@afneil
3h3 hours ago
More
Israeli military spokesman: rockets were fired by Iran’s Quds Force, a special forces unit affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, marking the first time Iranian forces have ever fired directly on Israeli troops.

kingstongraham

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Korea Aerospace Industries say it paid Michael Cohen's company $150,000 for “legal consulting concerning accounting standards on production costs”.

Now we know that he wasn't providing any professional legal service but money paid to the shell company was for access to the president;

"An official with one of those companies, who requested anonymity to speak openly, was more blunt. The official said Cohen “was promising access to Trump and members of the administration, positioning himself as a lobbyist.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 3b2c8ffe23

Like Trump, Cohen is nothing more than a shyster always looking to scam people.

Aren't all lawyers? said MF when this was read to him.

Is Cohen a real lawyer?

Did he get his qualifications online, at Trump University or is he just a fan of Better Call Saul?

He qualified from the institution with the lowest admission standards in the USA. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald- ... n-america/

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

robert88

And of course Trump has his eye on the oil - as did Britain - in the last moments of the Empire when it sorted out the Emirates and Trucial States - on the basis or establishing alliances within oil states. And in supporting the Shah of Iran who was deposed with American support.

The 1956 Suez crisis was of course oil-related and the point at which the UK became aware (helped by the USA) it was no longer a world super-power. Ironically, our desperation to control the canal was pretty pointless since the upcoming, cheaper VLCCs couldn't fit through it.

darkhairedlord

KingstonGraham wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Korea Aerospace Industries say it paid Michael Cohen's company $150,000 for “legal consulting concerning accounting standards on production costs”.

Now we know that he wasn't providing any professional legal service but money paid to the shell company was for access to the president;

"An official with one of those companies, who requested anonymity to speak openly, was more blunt. The official said Cohen “was promising access to Trump and members of the administration, positioning himself as a lobbyist.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... 3b2c8ffe23

Like Trump, Cohen is nothing more than a shyster always looking to scam people.

Aren't all lawyers? said MF when this was read to him.

Is Cohen a real lawyer?

Did he get his qualifications online, at Trump University or is he just a fan of Better Call Saul?

He qualified from the institution with the lowest admission standards in the USA. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald- ... n-america/

when you compare Cohen to Avenatti he looks somewhat lightweight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti

FishFish

Robert88 wrote:

And of course Trump has his eye on the oil - as did Britain - in the last moments of the Empire when it sorted out the Emirates and Trucial States - on the basis or establishing alliances within oil states. And in supporting the Shah of Iran who was deposed with American support.

The 1956 Suez crisis was of course oil-related and the point at which the UK became aware (helped by the USA) it was no longer a world super-power. Ironically, our desperation to control the canal was pretty pointless since the upcoming, cheaper VLCCs couldn't fit through it.

The canal was a trade route to British Colonies in the 19th C. That is why the protectorate of Egypt was garrissoned by British (maybe Indian) troops who were attacked during the Egyption uprise in 1956 - the response was to defend the bases and allow free movement within the canal not to assert colonial ambitions.

Britain lost its reputation as a global power far earlier - after it lost Singapore, HK and Burma to the Japanese.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

TheGardenGnome

But there is overall a trade deficit...

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

TheGardenGnome wrote:

right now it's important that the rest of the world (apart from SA, Israel, etc) doesn't back him.

I am very suspicious of Trump's real motives for his action. Iran has oil which Trump would dearly love to get his hands on, boosting the US economy and depriving China of a resource - here is a sample of his mindset from 2011:

r.

The US is currently an oil exporter and most of its refineries have put in a big investment so that they can handle the type of oil that comes from fr@cking; Iranian oil by comparison would have to be adjusted before most US refiners could use it.

If anything, a ban on iranian oil would support the prices of US fr@ckers.

It's not important that the oil doesn't suit US refineries; what is important is that the US controls the supply.

When the US exports more than it imports, it's wholly less relevant.

If they control supply from Iran, they can get a better price for their own production.

rick_chasey

That is unbelievably far fetched.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is unbelievably far fetched.

I'm not saying it is a plan that would work, but that doesn't mean someone with a weak grasp of history wouldn't try it. countries have been fighting over oil since it was discovered to be useful and before that it was other commodities.

kingstongraham

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... lton.shtml

FishFish

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

Still no less ridiculous than any of Dotard’s dribblings......

PhilipPirrip

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

I took it that KG was highlighting John Bolton's role in promoting false narratives about WMDs for his own political interests and the world be damned.

He is now National Security Advisor to a president who promotes false narratives for his own interests and the world be damned.

pblakeney

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

I took it that KG was highlighting John Bolton's role in promoting false narratives about WMDs for his own political interests and the world be damned.

He is now National Security Advisor to a president who promotes false narratives for his own interests and the world be damned.

Ah, so on a par with Tony Blair then?

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/20/ws_johnbolton.shtml

16 years out of date????? :?

I took it that KG was highlighting John Bolton's role in promoting false narratives about WMDs for his own political interests and the world be damned.

He is now National Security Advisor to a president who promotes false narratives for his own interests and the world be damned.

Ah, so on a par with Tony Blair then?

No one is on a par with Bliar. He is the undoubted, indisputable Emperor of the Khunts.

rick_chasey

FishFish wrote:

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

I suggest you’re not familiar with how commodity trading works.

FishFish

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

I suggest you’re not familiar with how commodity trading works.

I'm not but if the supply is controlled then it is not a commodity.

FishFish

Good to see that it is generally agreed that America is respected again. You may not like him but you can't take it away from him.

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

FishFish wrote:

If the US can control supply then it can restrict who it goes to.

I suggest you’re not familiar with how commodity trading works.

I would suggest that you are that person.

If you want credibility you need to explain how gaining control of a major source of oil production does NOT give Trump influence over supply. Just telling people they are wrong is a Trump tactic.

pblakeney

FishFish wrote:

Good to see that it is generally agreed that America is respected again. You may not like him but you can't take it away from him.

Feared, maybe.
Respected, no.

robert88

FishFish wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

And of course Trump has his eye on the oil - as did Britain - in the last moments of the Empire when it sorted out the Emirates and Trucial States - on the basis or establishing alliances within oil states. And in supporting the Shah of Iran who was deposed with American support.

The 1956 Suez crisis was of course oil-related and the point at which the UK became aware (helped by the USA) it was no longer a world super-power. Ironically, our desperation to control the canal was pretty pointless since the upcoming, cheaper VLCCs couldn't fit through it.

The canal was a trade route to British Colonies in the 19th C. That is why the protectorate of Egypt was garrissoned by British (maybe Indian) troops who were attacked during the Egyption uprise in 1956 - the response was to defend the bases and allow free movement within the canal not to assert colonial ambitions.

Britain lost its reputation as a global power far earlier - after it lost Singapore, HK and Burma to the Japanese.

I wasn't referring to its reputation was I?
Its self-awareness was the issue.

ayjaycee

FishFish wrote:

Good to see that it is generally agreed that America is respected again. You may not like him but you can't take it away from him.

I don't know whether you are an American or not but I do know that you are deluded and have no real idea how much a lot of the rest of the world actually dislikes todays USA and has no respect for it (or him) whatsoever.