#CrookedHillary has no plan and no strategy for defeating Islamic terrorist Mukka-Lukka rebels in Bulungi. Sad!
First, to put it even more bluntly than has already been done, investment is not ownership. I can buy $100 million of Apple bonds with no ownership stake. So the answer was not anywhere close to an answer.
Second, Russian oligarchs might have very good reason for investing in Trump companies besides direct returns. It might be a way of getting a foothold in the US. Even more likely, it might be a bet on Trump getting some degree of political power and influence. A good bet, as it turned out. We know that Trump believes giving money to get influence is smart business - do you think he would have moral qualms about getting money? After all, the Koch brothers don’t fund Republicans for direct financial reward.
On the first point, ‘investing in’ could be expanded to mean either equity investor or debt investor, which is why I specifically covered both in my previous responses. But it’s still not plausible that Russian billionaires or their owned non-financial companies would lend to TTO. That goes on common knowledge of how business works. They wouldn’t get a return worth their while, nor would they get much influence.
It couldn’t be ruled out that Russian banks controlled by oligarchs have lent to TTO. But even then take your own example: if you invested $100mil in Apple bonds what would be your influence on Tim Cook’s actions? Zero. If you were the main lender to Apple (and it was more heavily indebted than it is) then you’d have influence. But it’s a huge stretch to based on any known facts to speculate that Russian entities, coordinating, represent a critical proportion of TTO’s borrowings, and therefore Trump was being evasive. We don’t know that they represent any of its borrowings.
If Russian entities wanted direct influence on TTO they’d buy equity stakes in it, by far the best bank for buck in return and influence. But it’s completely believable if Trump says no outsiders have such stakes in TTO.
And anyway though I dealt with the ramifications of interpreting ‘invested in’ as including debt, that’s not how the question would be interpreted in normal business parlance. In a non-political context if some private concern A is own by the X family and the CEO is asked ‘have entities in country Y invested in A?’ and says ‘no X family is sole owner of A’, it would not be interpreted as an evasive answer, nor untruthful if it turned out some entities in Y had lent to A or bought its bonds. It would only be viewed as questionable if it turned out A was heavily indebted mainly to entities in Y, and would not be viewed as necessary for the CEO to explicitly say that wasn’t true if it wasn’t true.
I am curious why you are so confident in your knowledge of Russian oligarch investment practises. I mean people obviiusly do invest in Trump’s endeavors but we should assume a Russian oligarch never would because they are so strict on high return investments? And also assume that every Trump deal is low return?
I think its extremely plausible that Putin has figured out Trump:
Putin: Hillary will essentially continue Obama’s Policies, will not allow me to rebuild a Warsaw Pact over our neighbors. However, that orange guy has no clue what he’s doing, and he’s going to be getting his former allies screaming at him instead of working with them. I want the orange guy to be President because he’s going to screw the United States.
I have to think if you wanted to bet against the United States, you’d back Trump.
Is Trump a patsy? He’d never see himself as one and I’m sure it’s much more likely that he believes that he’s his own man while Putin is able to get what he wants on the edges.
Trump has said he’d like to send a major portion of the American military back into Iraq (to “take the oil”). If we get bogged down in the Middle East again, Putin will have a much freer hand in Eastern Europe.
First, your example is indeed evasive, but not untruthful. Which is the point - the response is not untruthful.
My Apple example was solely to discuss ownership. Apple is in considerably better financial shape than Trump is, despite his claims. We know he was teetering on the brink of real problems several times. Why no equity investments? I doubt Russian oligarchs want their fingerprints on these deals, and Trump, who had political ambitions way back, would not want their fingerprints on his holdings either.
As another example, if a businessman quietly lent a major politician a big chunk of money to cover, say, gambling debts, do you think that businessman would have no clout with that politician? If you’ve ever taken a course on dealing with the government, you’ll know that the rules are very strict, practically absurdly strict. That is because of the view that a business person giving a government worker something can be or can be construed to be an influence on his decisions.
Saying that Russian oligarchs couldn’t possibly think they could influence Trump with a loan is quite odd.
And Trump supporters should really ask themselves why our enemy is so hot on their guy. To make America Great Again? Hardly.
Trump’s asshole licking of Putin continued today:
[“Putin has much better leadership qualities than Obama,” Mr. Trump reiterated his views in slightly starker terms.
“I said he’s a better leader than Obama,” Mr. Trump said. “I said he’s a better leader than Obama, because Obama’s not a leader, so he’s certainly doing a better job than Obama is, and that’s all.](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-obama-putin.html?_r=0)
I can’t remember the context, and I can’t be bothered to go look for it, but a while back Trump was saying how he’d accomplish some part of his crazy-ass agenda, and he said something along the lines of “I will tell people to do it, and they’ll do it. If they don’t, I’ll fire them. That’s leadership.” I think I’m gonna have to disagree with his understanding of leadership.
The alpha lemming is the Leader! Follow MEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee (splat!)
Reasonable people would find disagreement with him about his understanding of the temperature outside.
That’s arguably a better response than the one he gave during the debates, when he was talking about having American troops torture prisoners and kill the family members of combatants; he was asked about soldiers disobeying unlawful orders, and simply replied “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. If I say ‘do it,’ they’re going to do it.” Problem solved!
[QUOTE=Roman Centurion, first century CE]
For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
[/QUOTE]
Those Romans were tough and smart! This guy was a much better leader than Obama. Much better!
From the preview of next year’s Wonder Woman movie:
Etta Candy introduces herself to Diana Prince as Steve Trevor’s secretary.
WW:What is a secretary?
ET:I do what he says and goes where he tells me to go.
WW:Where I am from, they call that slavery.
Putin is a better leader, since if they don’t do it he has them poisoned.
Voices are much, much more powerful than text.
And I’m pretty sure that we had one right here, until he was dismembered and reset. He had a few talking points, kept repeating them over and over, and then acted like we must be stupid for not getting his point. A trained troll with a very small bag of tricks.