MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:25 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:23 pm
Associated Pravda propaganda nonsense.
Notwithstanding '72's hyperbole added, which facts in the article are inaccurate, Mister I prefer RT?
It’s kind of hard to ignore jhu72’s hyperbole since that was his point. But let’s skip that.
It’s a highly partisan article, misleading, and predictable.
1. Jane Timken is married to Tim Timken who’s retired from the company but serves on the board. Timken has operations all over the world; market cap of $5 billion. ‘Russia’ accounts for less than 2% of sales. So disregarding the misogyny of blaming the wife for a husbands work, how upset are you with the following American companies with Russian operations:
http://www.aalep.eu/american-companies-operating-russia
Heck I own apple and McDonald’s stock….am I conflicted too
?!?
What horsheshid as Cradle says.
2. Because JD Vance is invested with a tiny contribution to Rumble, and because Rumble markets itself as a free speech platform, and because the government of Russia posts its hysterically dumb videos on Rumble, now Vance is compromised?!? Ayfkm?!
Twitter carries the account of the Iranian president who constantly calls for the elimination of Jews and Israel. Are you angry with Jack Dorsey? Is he compromised as a political donor?
3. Gibbons’ investment bank did 1 deal in 20 years, out of a thousand deals, as a junior advisor, to some Russian M$A transaction, and he’s compromised?! Gosh, I hope you don’t own any Goldman shares!!! They’ve had a full fledged office in Moscow for decades, doing hundreds of deals.
The article is typical American Pravda, hiding behind inconsequential, nonsensical semi-truths to call into question the entirety of every Republican’s characters. It’s dumb and needs to be called out. It’s a partisan hit job.
Instead, you and jhu72 champion the article as ‘evidence’ of something that on its face is misleading, offensive, and silly. And you’ll continue to do so, of course, because you don’t really care about the truth here, just trying to slyly attack good folks like Jane from the safety of the Internet shadows. You take wildly inconsequential and misleading semi-truths and gleefully claim you’re vindicated.