Slashdot Mirror
Apple CEO Says He Has Urged Trump To Address Legal Status of Immigrants; Also Told Him That Tariffs Are Wrong Approach To China (bloomberg.com)
Apple chief executive Tim Cook told Bloomberg Television that he has criticized Donald Trump's approach to trade with China in a recent White House meeting, while also urging the president to address the legal status of immigrants known as Dreamers. From the interview: Cook said his message to Trump focused on the importance of trade and how cooperation between two countries can boost the economy more than nations acting alone. Cook met with Trump in the Oval Office in late April amid a brewing trade war between the U.S. and China. The Trump administration instituted 25 percent tariffs on at least $50 billion worth of products from China, sparking retaliation. In the interview on "The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations," Cook acknowledged that previous trade policies were flawed but said Trump's move is also problematic. "It's true, undoubtedly true, that not everyone has been advantaged from that -- in either country -- and we've got to work on that," Cook said. "But I felt that tariffs were not the right approach there, and I showed him some more analytical kinds of things to demonstrate why."
Any criticism of Trump is is instant press these days.
That's because he's the president and also because 99% of what he says is flat out fucking stupid.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
And rightfully so. Previous administrations have heard a lot from the special interests of businesses before and acted accordingly. This administration is different and it is about damn time.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Nah, that was Hillary (ref the SNL skits). Trump's been saying stuff a LOT of people don't want to hear, even republicans.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
It's the loud folks on the internet that have no respect for the US. The thing is, they didn't before Trump either.
Not all politicians are part of the DNC.
Only Democrat that people could find positive argument to vote for was Bernie - who isn't actually a Democrat, but did get thrown under the bus by...the DNC.
And can't forget about the slush-fund scheme where local pols and fundraisers sent money up the chain to DNC which then could kick checks to Hillary and get around campaign limits. Getting around campaign limits by essentially hoodwinking their own supporters out of their money. So classy, so Hillary. So DNC.
Now the DNC is broke in an allegedly 'wave' election year for Democrats. Throw in Debbie-from-Florida running DNC into the ground, them getting hacked, compromised server, and then not letting anyone (including FBI) ever see this compromised server. Just hapless. If one is a Democrat, or wants to run as a Democrat, stay away from DNC. It is kiss-of-death and has that Clintonian ethical-skunkiness all over it; like a washed towel left in https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... drier too long before drying, and DNC will have that patina for years until that place gets its own 'reset.'
Any criticism of Trump is is instant press these days.
That's because he's the president and also because 99% of what he says is flat out fucking stupid.
While that may be true, you can't argue with results.
(And no, the world isn't losing respect for the US because of Trump. If anything the world is treating us with *more* respect because they see that we no longer back down and take whatever shitty deals they give us.)
What results? Removal of healthcare, tax breaks for the better off, banging porn starts and paying them off, making it so anything negative is fake news, the wall? No mate, the rest of the world IS losing respect for you because they see you don't give a fuck about anyone else anymore. When did the US accept whatever shitty deals were given to them? All deals are a meeting of compromise and America has shown she is no longer willing. When you start slinging its our way or the highway about you'll be surprised how many people will let you go. You might be able to get a good deal out of the UK though because we've fucked ourselves so hard that we'll probably literally be begging for it, but that isn't out of respect.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
NY Times:
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
September 2005
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
2006
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
February 2007
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.
June 2008
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.
2008-2010
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.
June 2009
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.
2010-2011
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
June 2010
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.
June 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
October 2010
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
January 2013
Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private.