Google is your friend.
Are you asserting that they aren’t actually sanctioned at all?
Not to mention her lesbian affairs, the long list of people she murdered, and her role as kingpin in the pizza parlor kiddie rape ring. Many people are saying she also has a swastika tattooed on her butt cheek (the left one, of course). You won’t hear anything about that from the lamestream fake news media, though; they’re too busy making up bullshit stories about Trump and his associates having ties to Russia.
I am asserting that they are traded on NASDAQ. Which means that NASDAQ is “doing business” with them. Which means that NASDAQ is allowed to “do business” with them. Which means that any investor who wants to buy those shares is allowed to “do business” with them.
And yes, it is neo-McCarthyism. As someone joked already, soon Democrats will breathlessly accuse their opponents of using Russian dressing on their salads.
Based on your own admission to being a partisan hack whose standards fluctuate freely depending on whether the left or the right is involved, I have little doubt that if we all had buzzcuts and horn-rimmed glasses and were having this conversation at the local malt shoppe, you’d be the one shaking your onion ring in someone’s face as you vigorously defended McCarthyism.
I don’t know if there’s a consensus, but yeah, most socialist types seem to think this is either a laughable CT that corporate Dems are using as a distraction from their embarassing loss or an excuse not to change anything, or they believe Trump is a corrupt Russian puppet but it doesn’t matter because Americans would be hypocritical to be outraged by election meddling and the Dems are about as corrupt anyway.
Birtherism led to Trump’s victory. I recall an article during the election cycle that said the highest correlation between Trump voters and any political position was doubt on Obama’s citizenship. I doubt this will help Dems though, unless people start getting frog marched to prison (there’s a new Pepe idea).
Let us know when it even remotely looks like this is anything that could possibly happen.
The answer appears to be complicated.
https://rbth.com/business/2016/09/05/what-do-new-us-sanctions-mean-for-K
The sanctions were placed various Gazprom subsidiaries and non-core assets, such as a media company they owned but did not extend to the parent company or its trading and distribution subsidiaries
The situation with Rosneft seems to be similar and in reading up on this, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around the meaning of the word sanctions. Yes, the US imposed sanctions on Rosneft.
But “sanctioned” doesn’t mean " no one can do any business with this company in any way shape or form". In this case the sanctions prevented US companies from engaging in certain activities involving energy exploration as well as preventing them from dealing with certain specific individuals (the goal being to get those people fired from their jobs).
So yes, everything in this story is true. The companies are under sanctions and Gianforte owns stock in them. But it leaves a false impression of wrongdoing because ownership and trading of the stock is not banned by the sanctions.
I hate it when left wing sites play this game - but we live in a world of clickbait journalism.
But I see no evidence that this story has spread beyond Montana local news and a few click bait left wing sites. Come back and complain when CNN and MSNBC devote hours to it, the way Fox spends hours on misleading journalism.
Off to The BBQ Pit (where it should have been posted to begin).
.
What a great idea for a start-up! Amish clickbait!
She did her best with those Pant-suits.
You are both very desperate to silence your consciences.
They aren’t traded on the NASDAQ.
They trade on the OTC markets. If you buy these tickers, what you’re actually buying is a bundle of securities from the Russian (or wherever these are listed) exchange that a bank or broker here has purchased overseas and grouped together for sale in the US.
Completely legally.
Yep.
Just had to clarify as a professional trader and market microstructure nerd.
Fuckin’ hippies!
Yet Trump has shown to be way more dishonest than Clinton. And I’d like a cite for her being proven a sociopath, please.
Thanks.
OK, then I concur that its much ado about nothing. Just the standard throw random mud at your opponent just in case some of it sticks. wake me when he is subpoenaed, with the goal of his personal destruction, by a house commitee (or seven) investigating his"un-American activities" and I’ll join you in your approbation.
OK-rah-homa, the San Francisco treat… o/~
(Hopeful that if someone else picks it up, it’ll get out of his head.)
I’ve worked with a lot of professional women of Hillary’s age. When they asked my opinion, I often said “Go for the pants. The skirt is not as flattering.”
What should Hilary have been wearing, in your opinion?
I mean…Christ…those yard long neckties and baggy suits and golf pants that make his ass look enormous. How could Clinton have looked THAT ridiculous?