Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Jared kushners 2 billion dollars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    This story has been around for at least a year and a half.
    And whatever one thinks about what might or might not have happened, the basic facts pattern looks pretty suspicious.

    Kusher gets a special appointment in the US government regarding the middle east
    ...
    ...
    ????
    ...
    ...
    Kushner gets billions of investments from the middle east

    If he didn't do any favors at all for them, what's with them showering him with money now? A House investigation of this should have started on day 1 of the Biden administration because it looks terrible in terms of apparent massive corruption. If the investigation had wrapped up after 2 weeks and publicly said "nope, it's all fine", that would have been okay, but they needed to actually do that investigation.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post
      This story has been around for at least a year and a half.
      I knew about the business deal, which seemed much ado about nothing. This is the first I've heard about the Saudis bragging that Kushner supposedly fed them classified information.

      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I knew about the business deal, which seemed much ado about nothing. This is the first I've heard about the Saudis bragging that Kushner supposedly fed them classified information.

        Surely you're not low-information?

        Daily Mail, 2018: Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying 'here are your enemies' days before 'corruption crackdown' which led to torture and death
        • Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Jared Kushner in October
        • Salman has since bragged about using classified intelligence from Kushner as part of a crackdown on 'corrupt' princes and businessmen in Saudi Arabia
        • He said the intelligence from Kushner included information on those who were disloyal to Salman and who were his 'enemies'
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Surely you're not low-information?

          Daily Mail, 2018: Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying 'here are your enemies' days before 'corruption crackdown' which led to torture and death
          • Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Jared Kushner in October
          • Salman has since bragged about using classified intelligence from Kushner as part of a crackdown on 'corrupt' princes and businessmen in Saudi Arabia
          • He said the intelligence from Kushner included information on those who were disloyal to Salman and who were his 'enemies'
          So, unnamed sources claim from a paper with such a poor reputation of checking facts and sources that even Wikipedia has banned it? That's the information you are relying on?

          Comment


          • #20
            Interesting video embedded in the Daily Mail article that I didn't recall, a Trump press op with Salman. I liked the focus on bringing in foreign money to the US and creating jobs here, but it seemed Trump might have been selling too much high-tech weaponry to a fair-weather friend (if one could even call them that).

            https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video...8574856452.mp4

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
              Interesting video embedded in the Daily Mail article that I didn't recall, a Trump press op with Salman. I liked the focus on bringing in foreign money to the US and creating jobs here, but it seemed Trump might have been selling too much high-tech weaponry to a fair-weather friend (if one could even call them that).

              https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video...8574856452.mp4
              IIRC, we started selling advanced, high tech weaponry to the Saudis back in 1990 or thereabouts.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                So, unnamed sources claim from a paper with such a poor reputation of checking facts and sources that even Wikipedia has banned it? That's the information you are relying on?
                As long as it tells him what he wants to hear, he'll accept it with no questions asked.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  So, unnamed sources claim from a paper with such a poor reputation of checking facts and sources that even Wikipedia has banned it? That's the information you are relying on?
                  SL provided that article as a timestamp on when the story first came out. It is acceptable in that context.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    IIRC, we started selling advanced, high tech weaponry to the Saudis back in 1990 or thereabouts.
                    I wouldn't doubt it. But since that time we've learned that the Saudis were turning a blind eye - if not knowingly assisting - the 9/11 terrorists in the US. I wouldn't trust them with our best weaponry.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                      SL provided that article as a timestamp on when the story first came out. It is acceptable in that context.
                      It's just funny, given his previous comments about Daily Mail:
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Gond,
                      The Daily Mail is a UK tabloid that is well-known as infamously unreliable and inaccurate in its reporting. You should use a different source in general.
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Yeah, the "facts" being reported are almost completely false.

                      My understanding is that The Daily Mail is the UK's fake news source like Breitbart is for the US. As wiki puts it:
                      The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research[11][12][13][14][15]
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      It's you gullibly trusting the Daily Mail which tends to write about half the truth at the best of times.


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        It's just funny, given his previous comments about Daily Mail:
                        OUCH!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                          OUCH!
                          I mean, here's the two big questions that come to mind:

                          1. If it's such a bad source, why is he using it?
                          2. Given that it's such a bad source, why is he calling someone low information for having not seen that story...it would make sense someone's not reading a bad source.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                            I mean, here's the two big questions that come to mind:

                            1. If it's such a bad source, why is he using it?
                            2. Given that it's such a bad source, why is he calling someone low information for having not seen that story...it would make sense someone's not reading a bad source.
                            IMO, (1) tells him what he wants to hear so he isn't questioning its credibility. I question it without disregarding it.
                            (2) It is a contradiction. But again, if used only as a timestamp, it's fine. The story has been circulating since that time. If it was the only source for that information then SL's carping is unwarranted.

                            As far as what wiki accepts as sources, that isn't really a good litmus. It accepts the NYT (and other questionable sources) despite relying on unnamed sources, and its biased reporting presented as facts (like the Russian dossier). And since anyone can edit wiki, propaganda can languish in an article for some time before being noted or officially removed. IOW, wiki itself is so weak a source that I avoid using it whenever possible.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                              IMO, (1) tells him what he wants to hear so he isn't questioning its credibility. I question it without disregarding it.
                              (2) It is a contradiction. But again, if used only as a timestamp, it's fine. The story has been circulating since that time. If it was the only source for that information then SL's carping is unwarranted.

                              As far as what wiki accepts as sources, that isn't really a good litmus. It accepts the NYT (and other questionable sources) despite relying on unnamed sources, and its biased reporting presented as facts (like the Russian dossier). And since anyone can edit wiki, propaganda can languish in an article for some time before being noted or officially removed. IOW, wiki itself is so weak a source that I avoid using it whenever possible.
                              I don't disregard it, however, until I see a more reputable source, possibly named, it is very much in the realm of vague rumor and gossip.

                              You might say he chose that article to better appeal to the "conservatives" but usually that is done with a call-out.
                              Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 09-24-2023, 10:20 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                At best, the whole Kushner and Saudi Arabia thing is very bad optics that gives every appearance of impropriety and potential corruption. I think the reality is far worse, and this is a case quite similar to the Hunter case, where a son/son-in-law uses the political position their father/father-in-law (and their own status that resulted from that office), to enrich themselves and abuse the office in question. Honestly both probably deserve to be in prison. And the father/father-in-law that enabled them should not be allowed near any political office ever again.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:29 AM
                                1 response
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:13 AM
                                0 responses
                                5 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:18 PM
                                0 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 02:55 PM
                                2 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:17 PM
                                16 responses
                                68 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X