Does anyone really believe Hillary would be tougher on Russia than Trump?

Considering she gave Russia 20% of our Uranium production I sincerely believe she would let Putin walk all over us. Meanwhile Trump has been tough BUT fair with Russia so far. What say you political gamers forum?

Snopes: False

Politifact:

Trump says Clinton "gave up 20 percent of America's uranium supply to Russia."

The reference is to Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).

Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only Obama had the power to veto it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.

@R3FURBISHED: politifact is a George Soros owned website lmaooo it has zero credibility

http://www.weeklystandard.com/conflict-of-interest-politifact-and-the-clinton-foundation-share-megadonor/article/2004689

And Snopes?

Regardless of ownership, the facts do not change.

Trump isn't tough on Russia........and Clinton didn't sell Russia uranium. Someone needs to remove their head from their ass.

I think she would have gotten us to nuclear war.

I definitely know she would have destroyed these nations:

Iran

Yemen

Syria

Probably South Sudan, too.

@R3FURBISHED: do you even know who George Soros is?

Dem mega-donor

Do you know what a normative statement is?

Well, yes. Russia didn't help Hillary win her campaign so she would have less incentive to do everything possible to protect Putin the way Trump has been doing.

I mean it's kind of laughable at this point to think that Trump would be tough on his campaign supporters, and Putin was a huge campaign supporter of Trump. Inb4 MAGAts say how wrong I am about Putin supporting Trump.

that is more of the COCK brothers propoganda. Politifact is owned by an ebay founder, Pierre Omidiyar. Republicans are seriously messed up in the head to believe all these crazy conspiracy theories about Hilary Clinton. Not even a president can do half the shit the dumb right wing nut jobs think hilary supposedly did. What would Hilary have to gain from selling uranium to russia in this fictional fairy tail you repubterds like to tell? Face it, you have been fed bullshit fake news from fox news and you come here sounding like retards. The brainwashing program needs to be undone before you nut jobs can enter society safely again.

Why keep poking the guys with nuclear weapons and a first strike policy ?

I'm sure some of us would have been digging trenches in Europe or something. Wait, we're still doing that right now.

Computing Forever is a conservative that supports Trump. He's not buying Trump's relationship inconsistencies with Putin (2013 video says he has a relationship with Putin). He makes a great point about alternative news outlets not scrutinizing Trump.

@Gaming-Planet:

Problems:

First off, Trump has stated that he supports gay rights and accepted that it was the law of the land according to numerous "mainstream" media outlets.

The "spin" has to do with Trump's appointments such as Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, and Goursh (?) who could rule against gay rights (NOT gay marriage, but rights). The issue is that Trump's statements and support for policies are being contradicted by cabinet members and appointees who may not share his ideology, whether it's a good thing or bad thing.

Being overly critical is one thing but analytical is another.

lol wut?

First off, Clinton supported the Iran deal just as Obama did. Trump opposes it and has taken a hardline position on Iran. Using common sense dictates that Trump would most likely enter a war with Iran.

Second, who just launched a raid in Yemen just recently? As much as I oppose our intervention in Yemen during the Obama Administration, to suggest that only Clinton would destroy those nations is idiotic because Trump just launched an attack that was a complete failure.

Third, who wanted to defeat ISIL in 30 days but didn't? You guessed it! It's Trump. Clinton would have taken a hardline position on ISIL as well if it makes you feel better.

Forth, if you honestly think Clinton would bring us to a nuclear holocaust, you need to lay off the "alternative media." lol

Remember kids. If you can't counter someone's argument, just say it's owned by George Soros. That'll get 'em!

Obama was soft remember when he was caught on an open mic whispering to Putin "After my election, I'll have more flexibility".

Meanwhile, Robert Mercer and the Koch Bros have pumped way, way, WAY more money into the political system than George Soros has.

Soros is a made up boogeyman with no where near as much influence as people like the OP thinks he has.

No, Polifact is not owned by the eBay founder. It is in fact owned by the Tampa Bay Times, who is actually owned by Times Publishing, a part of the Poytner Institute for Media Studies. The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter shows exactly that. Still, Politifact is a biased organization who shows no consistency with its ratings and is discussed at PolitiFact Denies Its Own Left-Wing Bias and Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives.

“Mostly False” is PolitiFact’s most frequent rating for Republicans who aren’t named Trump (more on that in the next piece). PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources as “mostly false” by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.

Well maybe they shouldn't lie so much.

My thoughts exactly. When it comes to being honest you can't have it balanced for the sake balance or the site itself would be the one lying. Also The Federalist is a horrible source for information.

There is a fierce debate going on now behind closed doors within the circles of the ruling classes of the US, one that want's war with Russia another that thinks the risk of a nuclear exchange and it's cost is too much or simply that the US is not ready for conventional full-scale war, the former have become more predominate in recent years despite FP Obama' attempts to hold them back.

Hillary would have been "tough on Russia" yes not because this is the will of the American people but because she was well under the control of the military establishment especially the elements from CIA and the neocon generals that have been pushing for war hard, these people are now using their tools in media to essentially blackmail President Trump to force him to take a "tough stand" against Russia and make no mistake by "tough stand" they mean direct confrontation between US armed forces with armed forces of the Russian Federation in Syria and East Europe a situation not even the cold war saw, so think Cuban missile crises with a President Trump instead of Kennedy in Whitehouse and that may give you some idea of the magnitude.

War gives Hillary a big wetty so yes she would of been tougher on Russia. That is not a good thing.

@drunk_pi:

My assertion comes from this:

Iran deal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-sanctions_us_5728dc4ce4b096e9f08f46b3

Yemeni Civil War is just another Saudi pandering coalition. 25 mil was given to Shillary Clinton. I know Trump isn't going to stop the raids in Yemen, considering he does business with Saudi Arabia.

Looks like they were on board with Hillary, in hopes that she'd win to go along with a no-fly zone in Syria.

@Gaming-Planet:

This video was from 2008. Although it does demonstrate her hypocrisy is willingness to go "alpha" for the sake of getting votes, it doesn't mean much in the 2016 election cycle when she also supported the Iran Nuclear Deal, something that Trump and the GOP vehemently oppose.

That being said, here's Trump suggesting that he would attack Iran over "rude gestures." LINK

So your answer to Russia is to reinvent the cold war?

But yes i do believe that Clinton would be tougher on Russia than we may see from Trump.

You are asking the wrong question though, the right question to ask is that the most viable way? to escalate a conflict that only came out of Putin reading Obama correct as a weak leader who did not have the balls to actually do anything more serious than sanctions.

So your answer to Russia is to reinvent the cold war?

But yes i do believe that Clinton would be tougher on Russia than we may see from Trump.

You are asking the wrong question though, the right question to ask is that the most viable way? to escalate a conflict that only came out of Putin reading Obama correct as a weak leader who did not have the balls to actually do anything more serious than sanctions.

The right question to ask is why do we want to be "tough on Russia" when Americans and Russians want to live in peace.

Not only have America and Russians always enjoyed good relations we as a people fought together in the last world war against the sort of tyranny that forces at work are trying to resurrect. I hope there can be an absolution between our people before its too late to repeat mistakes of the 20th century.

What the Soviet Union did after WW2 and Russia continues to do today is tyranny....yes.

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers? How about US News and World Reports?

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

Can you be a bit more specific on the russian tyranny.

Russia have been doing a lot of things , some good, some bad and some well, let´s say in the grand scheme of things, Russia is no better or worse than so many others.

Trump has his nose so far up Putin's ass it would be hard not to be tougher on Russia than he has been.