So Orban's Party won the election in Hungary and the question is

And here's another disgusting Putin apologist, ButtPlug, trying to change the sbject with infantile whataboutisms.

Is that all you have, ButtPlug?

Well then ButtPlug, why don't you go and revive one of the threads where we discussed Bozo being a puppet of Putin and say what it is that is making you all tearful? This thread is about the invasion of Ukraine.

Run along now . . .

No, this thread is actually about Hungary ...y.

Stav

Bullshit  -let me start with one of the  later statements o0f you7rs - the rest is drivel anyway.

The media worldwide reported that Orban  is popular in rural areas and small owns and he main opposition strength is Budapest.    Pease read the following:-

"Domestically, the degree of Fidesz's victory was attributed to Fidesz's influence over the domestic media landscape, voters' desire for stability during the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, strong ideological differences within the main opposition coalition, the perception of Márki-Zay as inexperienced, and urban–rural political polarization.[28] Some analysts claimed that the majority of Jobbik voters turned out for Fidesz or Mi Hazánk instead of the united opposition.[29] Márki-Zay shared this assessment, admitting that the united opposition may have lost up to "two thirds" of Jobbik voters.[30] Other opposition leaders could not immediately agree on how to assess their defeat. DK leader Ferenc Gyurcsány and Jobbik leader Péter Jakab blamed Márky-Zay,[31][32][33] while Bernadett Szél and Ákos Hadházy did not.[34] Péter Ungár claimed that while it was a "strategic mistake" for a center-left alliance to nominate the conservative Márky-Zay, the united opposition's "elitist" rhetoric may have hurt it with rural voters even in traditionally left-leaning constituencies.".

Orban supports Hungarian EU membership you uninformed clown

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/access-single-market-key-hungarys-eu-membership-pm-2021-09-17/

Voting or supporting Orban does not mean the people offering that support are against EU membership. 

So in answer to my first two questions that's a resounding no, you don't have any evidence to support your claim that support for EU membership is lower outside of Budapest or that the polling was limited to Budapest.

First of all - let me be clear on the issue  - the arrest of Russian speaking members of Parliament occurred before the Russian invasion .and after the Parliament voted unanimously to oppose any armed action against Ukraine by Russia,    So how did the relevant members commit treason - please explain. 

The leader of the main opposition party was arrested last year and charged with treason (you claimed in another thread that he was never charged with anything, another falsehood) on the grounds of transferring oil and gas production licences in the Crimea to Russia and disclosing secret data regarding Ukrainian troop deployments. It never reached court as he escaped during the Russian invasion. I'm not aware of any other members of the opposition party being arrested. Please provide evidence if you have any.

It happened after the debate  in the Ukraine Parliament when Russian speaking members opposed the law that ban Russian teaching from Ukraine schools - so what was the real reason for the arrest?     A non-existent treason charge - or what? 

Again evidence of opposition members other than the leader being arrested. And again Russian was not banned in schools.  The law requires that school lessons be conducted in Ukrainian. Education taught in Russian is permitted up to the 5th year of schooling if there is demand for it and then after that as a separate language course. 

As for whether the treason charge is genuine or politically motivated, I wouldn't know, but I know you absolutely don't know either.

Glad to hear about the EU Venice Declaration about  Language rights - did the EU take up the issue with the Ukraine and Russian Governments and try to settle the difference?  Unfortunately no evidence that they did.   

Was it the EU's business to do so? It might be down the road if Ukraine wants to joins the EU. Was it Russia's? But I tell you what the EU didn't do, they didn't use it as false pretext to invade a country and commit war crimes.

You have it wrong - days before the Invasion the Ukraine Parliament banned the teaching of Russian in schools.     It still have to be signed into law by the President and he would already have done so were it not for the invasion.   

Nope I've already explained what the situation is regarding the language law. Ukraine schools must be taught in Ukrainian but Russia can be taught as sperate language course? How many schools in Russian conduct their lessons in Ukrainian to accommodate the 1.7 million Ukrainian's who live there by the way? And here is a shocker, in France all French schools lessons are conducted in French!!!

You bring in Crimea for what reason?    

I thought that was what you where referring to about the communists creating Ukraine's borders in 1954.

There was an unconstitutional coup in Kiev in 2014

Ukraine's internal business.

and the Crimea Parliament made up of virtually all Russian-speaking members decided to vote to join Russia and called for an referendum on the decision - since they did not trust the new Ukrainian  Government.    The result of the referendum was overwhelming in favor of becoming part of Russia and the actual outcome was confirmed by opinion polls done by US and German opinion pollsters.  So how did Russia annex the Crimea?  They accepted the verdict by the Crimea voters and  that led to an incorporation of the Crimea into Russia.   So why did it happen at all?   The Crimea Parliament foresaw what was going to happen and wanted peace in their province.   The Donbas area was not so lucky - the coup in Kiev caused a civil war and that has been ongoing since 2014 and never stopped. 

The referendum was a sham held while Crimea was under Russian army control and an entirely pro Russian campaign presented to the people of Crimea where they where given a Hobson choice of independence which wasn't economically viable or joining with Russia without being given an option to remain with Ukraine which polling afterward in Crimea suggests would of been the preferred option. There was reports of pre-filled out ballot papers, people have documentation confiscated and people voting in regions they where not registered to vote in etc etc. In short its a total sham that has no credibility in the eyes of the world. 

The fact is that you did not follow what happened in Ukraine in 2014 before the coup.   The uprising was popular in the Ukraine speaking areas - not in the Russian speaking areas  and your first story about annexation of Crimea was BS to start off with.   Whether the uprising was popular or not is not an issue.    The fact is that the US funded the whole uprising through the US embassy in Kiev and paid millions to the organizers, while arming the Azov battalion,

The revolution certainly had less support in east Ukraine but that's doesn't mean a majority of Russian speaking Ukrainian's wanted to join Russia. In fact during the war in the Donbass in the area's the Ukrainan's retook from the separatists the civilian population express contempt for the separatists and now in 2022 with a full invasion of Ukraine by Russia the majority of the Russian speaking Ukrainians have now turned absolutely against Russia.

As for USA funding the revolution, total and utter conspiracy garbage.

who shot at police in the final days of the uprising.   It was not popular in the Donbas area at all - the civil war broke out and since it involved Russian speaking people with families in Russia Putin did supply the local Russians  with arms.  

Funny I thought it was Ukrainian authorities that shot into crowds of protesters? True it wasn't as popular in the Donbass but that doesn't mean the majority of the Donbass wanted to split off from Ukraine or had the right to do so by means of an armed take over. 

I agree with you the decision about the ME refugees was taken by  the French and German Governments - and forced through the EU.  The smaller member States would have none of it and  Germany and France were left with all the refugees.   What I said was clear - the situation then caused distrust of the EU in those countries and that remains a fact.  

It wasn't forced through the EU. The EU consists of independent and sovereign countries and they frequently do disagree on issues and this is just another example of that. As for mistrust among member states, EU membership support has generally gone up in the last few years in every member state, particularly with the shitshow that was Brexit.

As to the Bucha incident why would it not be necessary for the UN to investigate the incident? If Russia is indeed involved in war crimes than proof would be .found if there is  such proof action against Russia should be done through the ICC in Den Haag. .   What is the problem with having the incident investigated by the UN?   

I'm sure it will be thoroughly investigated in time, it just won't be done in a way to serve as a propaganda tool for the likely perpetrators of the crime.

As to disinformation like the Russian Hoaxes in the USA   has now been investigated by a Special Council and criminal charges has already been laid because of lies spread by the Democratic Party.    Some UN media who covered the allegation of Trump[s links with Russia on a 24/7 basis for five years has suddenly stopped reporting on that one, because they lied to the public on a continuous basis.    The internet platforms in the USA banned the discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop  two years ago - now that same laptop linking Hunter to his father is being investigated by a  Grand Jury and the filth from what was called "The Laptop from Hell" is clearly real and not a Russian Disinformation story as alleged in 2020.    When people started querying the gain of function research at Wuhan as a potential source of the Covid 19 virus - the internet banned it  and the other media   hushed it up.      I can name strings of other examples where bans  and disinformation are the norms in the USA.

Blah blah blah blah, bullshit.

Lastly the issue with EU membership - members are not supposed to lose control of the countries they govern and become subjected to the rules of the EU telling them what they may and may not do in their own countries.    It was supposed to be a Union co-ordinating relationships between countries not one governing individual member countries through EU regulations - that was the main reason for departure by the  UK from the EU and is still a sticking point for some countries

When you join a club you agree to abide by the clubs rules. Area's where the EU has competency over member states national laws are area's the members states agreed to give them competency. In terms of laws and regulations in the UK up to the 2016 referendum for example 97% of EU laws and regulations passed by the EU the UK voted in favour of. If you asked the average British person in the street they wouldn't be able to name a single law the UK voted against. But in fairness the perception of the EU being too controlling was a major reason for Brexit, and its a major feature of Euroscepticism in general across Europe. But as it stands all EU members states show majority support for EU membership in polling and several states such as Ukraine and Moldova want to join it.

Clever  here’s a simple one for you…..provide one credible source that thinks Obama stole the Iranian money. I’m not even looking for proof, I’m looking for one sane person that believes this……scan your sources and produce the person.

I asked you a simple question and you did not answer it.  The amount paid for the planes by the Shah but not delivered  was $400 million.   That is a proven fact.   You claimed that $300  million was added iro of interest - making the total amount due $700 million.   Why was $1,7 billion paid and to whom?   Even if the Obama Administration believed that  $1,7 billion was due  on what basis was $1 billion  added to the amount due ($400 million) and interest due  thus being $1,3 billion.       

The Iran Government claimed they received  only $1,32  billion - what happened to the other $368 million?   So  $380 million went missing - where did it go to?   You want to tell me that any Government would allow that sum of money to go missing  without any involvement of the people running the show.    If that was the case what happened and why under the Obama Administration?     Please explain that fiasco and  how you still  claim Obama and his Cabinet was NOT  involved in that case.        

Ou Maaik, for the third time, where did you read that the mayor of Bucha said there were no Russian atrocities?

You claim you only deal in facts. Where did you get this particular fact?

Stav

You are too easy to handle  and raise all the propaganda about the election.   In 2019 a German opinion poll by reputable pollsters claimed that  97% of the people - including  some of those who voted  against it  - was happy with the incorporation of the Crimea into  Russia.   Even if your media based claims about what was wrong in the election was true, the real fact is that over 90% of the people in Ukraine did not want to be part of the new Ukraine and feared for the safety of their people which was not guaranteed by the new  Government.     

Crimea was NEVER in history  part of  the  Ukraine.   Under the communists the USSR was a dictatorship  ruled from Moscow and since 1954 was for political purposes not really affected by the dictatorial border making it part of Ukraine to ensure that Russians make up the majority population  of the Federal Republic of Ukraine.   That was also the case when Ukraine became an  independent country, but still ruled by the majority Russian population.   That was changed by the coup in 2014 and not changed by an election  according to the Ukraine Constitution.   Fact is that since 2014 not a single election covering the whole 1954 area of Ukraine was held and they effectively in fact only represents the  Ukraine component of the population.   .    

Arrest of Russian  Members of Parliament of the opposition - they were arrested after voting with the Government against a potential invasion by Russia.   So why before the invasion occurred could they possibly be guilty of treason before the invasion even happened.   The much admired Government of Ukraine has afterwards when the invasion did happen banned all opposition parties and the situation now is the Ukraine is a one-party dictatorship.   Did the media tell you about the last effort.

DumbMikes never quotes his sources, because most of the time it is the likes of 4Chan, or some past constipation that was conquered. 

Ou Maaik is proving what most people know . . . that he's a stupid, brainwashed, low-class cowardly liar.

You ever provide sources other than C NN and the Guardian?   Don't make me laugh.    I even quoted from Wikipedia and other internet sources  when providing info - but never from the fake media, which has a record of lying to the public and be accepted by the brainwashed idiots like you.   

I am not brainwashing material since I think for myself and am able to identify BS when I see it. That really is the difference and you are too imbecilic to think for yourself and am brainwashed by the fake media with the greatest of ease.

If you can read and understand anything you may find that it was included in documents send to the UN by the Russians asking for an investigation of the whole issue.   . Ask Seb wh ere he got that info from.   What I maintained all along is the matter should be investigated by the UN and then handed over to the ICC in Den Haag if anybody was found to be responsible for the massacre. What is wrong with that dimwit?     .       

So Mike provide one credible person who thought Obama stole Iran’s money….no more bs….just one other person who believes the rubbish you spout.

Moffie, good luck getting this cowardly and deceitful excuse of a human being to actually give an honest answer.

"Ask Seb where he got that info from"

Seb, since when did this mayor of Bucha refute all these claims that the Russian soldiers did absolutely nothing to the Ukranian citizens?

Mozart

Provide me with your figures getting to $1,7 b illion paid and we can then discuss the issue further.   You gave the amount paid - not me - so tell me how the USA managed to pay for a debt of $400 million due plus interest to reach $1,7 billion dollars   Will the  interest mean an increase of $1,3 million - ie 3,33 times the original debt be accrued over 50 years and what was the percentage of interest used to reach that amount compared to the average interest applies to home loans in the USA over a 30 year period.

Once we have clarity on that issue we can discuss the matter further and also deal with the claim that he Iran Government claimed they were only paid $1,32 billion and not $1,7 billion as you claimed as the paid amount.      .      

   .            

Rooinek

Keep out of discussions you know nothing about - your brain is too retarded to understand anything.   

I do not swallow rightwing propaganda - the preserve to swallow BS left wing propaganda in the media entirely belongs to you.    F or four years you repeated crap about Trumps collusion with the  Russians were repeated faithfully on site and when it came out the accusations in the media and the whole Mueller investigation was based on lies spread by Clinton, the DNC and the Democratic Party you still denied it and stated that Trump was colluding with the Russian despite the evidence to the contrary and people charged criminally to lying to the FBI and the FISC Court.

It is impossible for you to think for yourself  and that makes you a toal imbecile believing everything the leftwing media tells you to believe.  Super idiot you acerainly are.         

Is it not best to seek different stances  of a conflict?

To take any sides viewpoint is naive.

Besides taking the media as gospel is prone to error and is not better first to research and at least acquaint yourself with history, context, narrative etc. To make presumptions, assumptions and base it on so called evidence.Today the internet is used irresponsibly to propagate political agendas and people minds can easily be turned into sheep. The pandemic was a training course to set people apart, Some people are easily led. When people disagree, some even get violent, disrespectful and think insulting wins arguments. It obviously does not, empty barrels = most noise.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water and taking situations, words etc out of context, even staging doctored scenes seems to be the order of the day in this new world. The thought pattern of one point of view fits all is insane.

What is very disturbing and very discomforting is, society's total indifference to whether it's right or wrong as long as it fits the status quo and our viewpoints irrespective if it's true or false. If the agendas are accomplished that's ok with them. They think lying is ok.

Also they don't listen very well and are not interested in the others standpoint and jump to conclusions. I think we all do that at times when some comment strikes a raw nerve.

I don't idolise no man and glaring errors in all politicians are commonly seen in all and they are not my favourite people...I read Churchill a lot, one stage I admired him but later saw how morally lacking he was  I sincerely believe that the president of Russia is certainly not the worst and bears no resemblance to the picture that the media paints of him. But that's how I see him.I don't discount the fact too that I might be wrong but that's for history to prove...everything comes out eventually. People are always targeting certain leaders and portraying them as inhuman monsters, we look for scapegoats.

Clever you are a total fool…but you don’t know it. There is no way in the US that $400 million could be plundered by a President. That is the dumbest form of retarded conspiracy nonsense that no educated person would believe.

Apply 4% in compound interest to the original $400 million of frozen assets and you get $1.7 billion. This from the Brookings Institute:

‘The settlement announced in January involved two parts: return of the $400 million principal and payment of $1.3 billion in interest.

To return the principal, the Treasury, working with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, made a $400 million wire transfer from DFAS to the Swiss National Bank. The $400 million was then converted into Swiss francs and withdrawn in franc banknotes, which were transferred to Geneva. On January 17, the banknotes were disbursed to an official from the Central Bank of Iran.

The interest was paid from the Judgment Fund, which pays “court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government.” For a payment to be made by the Judgment Fund, Treasury must receive confirmation from the Attorney General that the settlement is in the United States’ best interests‘

"Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million

BY KARL VICK

AUGUST 5, 2016 3:44 PM EDT

It does look fishy as all get out: $400 million in assorted denominations, stacked on wooden pallets and flown to Tehran in the dead of night by the government of the United States. Hours later, five imprisoned Americans are released and board planes to freedom. If that situation—which took place in January—doesn’t look like a hostage deal, what does?

Answer: The actual hostage deal that in fact accounts for the cash payment, which President Obama said on Thursday was not a ransom.

The currency shipped to Iran in the dead of night drew attention from presidential candidate Donald Trump this week, who on Friday appeared to walk back an earlier assertion that he had seen a payment being delivered. But that money was owed to the Islamic Republic since 1979, the year the U.S. froze all the Iranian funds in American banks as retribution for seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, as revolution swept that nation.

What was universally known as the Iran hostage crisis went on for more than a year, and finally ended with a bargain: In exchange for the release of 52 American diplomats and citizens, both sides agreed to resolve the question of money through international arbitration. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has trudged along for almost four decades now, and the money has flowed both ways. By 1983, Iran had returned $896 million to U.S. banks, which in turn had returned hundreds of millions in frozen funds to Iran. Today, private claims from the U.S. side have been resolved to the tune of $2.1 billion.

But still at issue as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late 1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally. After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money back—and with interest.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment.

The day it arrived, however, a great deal else was going on. January 17 was the day the international compact rolling back Iran’s nuclear program was set to take formal effect. It was also the day that Iran had, privately, agreed to release five Americans it had imprisoned on spurious charges. At the same time, the Obama administration would release seven Iranians the U.S. had held for violating sanctions—the same sanctions that had brought Iran to the negotiating table, and indeed had necessitated doing business in cash, Iran’s banks having been cut off from the international banking system.

There were a lot of moving parts and fraying nerves at the time—and the whole teetering contraption nearly came crashing down when a couple of U.S. Navy river boats strayed into Iranian waters, and were taken by the Revolutionary Guards five days before the big day. To those who follow U.S.-Iranian relations, the swiftness of the sailors’ release—the very next day—was the most impressive indication of how badly both sides wanted January 17 to come off as planned.

At least till now.

The pallets of Euros and Swiss francs are even more vivid a symbol. To Iran-watchers, they show how badly Obama’s team wanted to bolster Iran’s moderate leaders, who had promised their public that the nuclear deal would produce immediate economic improvements. It also helps to bear in mind that Iran’s theocratic government works on a patronage system. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president, it was his loyalists who got the contracts to smuggle Iran’s oil past the sanctions; President Hassan Rouhani is now grappling with the fallout from paying his own people tens of thousands a month. In short, cash and a show of good will were much in demand.

Were the prisoners a factor? Even on Jan. 17, when the apparent quid pro quo was Obama’s grant of clemency to the seven Iranians, the concept of hostage-taking haunts every transaction with Iran.

The mullahs insisted that Jimmy Carter have left office before releasing the 52 original hostages, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in Jan. 21, 1981. The “arms for hostages” scandal that marred Reagan’s second term brought together Iran, Central American insurgencies and U.S. prisoners held by Iranian surrogates.

Nor was President Obama the first president to look for leverage in The Hague. A flurry of claims settlements in 1989 came as President George H.W. Bush attempted to persuade Tehran to help release more American hostages, a group that was being held in Lebanon. “I’d like to get this underbrush cleaned out now,” Bush said, after the U.S. announced it was releasing $567 million in frozen assets to Tehran. “I hope,” Bush added, “they will do what they can to influence those who hold these hostages.”

At the time, a State Department official quoted in TIME acknowledged what amounted to a dance: “You want to do things that are justifiable on their own merits and defensible in terms of U.S. interests. And if Iran wants to take it as a signal, fine.” And, if not dandy, at least the way things seem to work with Iran.

CONTACT US AT LETTERS@TIME.COM.

4% is good interest on war sanctioned money...wonder if Russia will get the same deal in a decade or 3...they should have given them the planes they baught instead...pallets of cash shipped in the middle of the night look too much like a Mafia or drug cartel movie...no wonder there's stories...

Well that was through the 80s when inflation and the interest rates were high. It had all the hallmarks of a political deal…but it had to be settled, the number was only going to grow bigger and even more embarrassing.

From 1992 what was the interest rate in the US before the settlement debacle?   It rarely reached 2% and that made up the compound interest rate of  4%.    Why was the money delivered in pallets to the Iranian Government and not through normal banking systems.  In your previous post you listed  the Interest as $300 million - then suddenly it became $1,3 billion.

Whether it was in Swiss franks or whatever other currency it was paid by the US Government. to be the equivalent of  $1,7 million.    Nice  to get  4% interest when for more than 30 years it was not half of that interest in the USA.    Why in a statement  the Iranian Government insisted that they only received $1,32 or the equivalent of that amount.   In any event the money did not go to the Iranian people - it went to the proxy wars the Iranians are involved in.     

People do not use cash money to settle international debts anyway - so the matter still stinks to high heaven.     . 

As to the real situation your St Obama  declared his assets when he became Senator in 2004 as $100 000.    He got a salary of less than  $180 000  per year and allowances to cover office staff and expenditure in both Washington and his home state - but actual expenditure on those items must be proven and cannot be regarded as personal income.   When he became President in 2008 he declared his assets as $3,5 million.   How was that possible on a salary of less than  $180 000 per year?    Then when he left the WH after 8 years  he went on a buying spree of luxury homes, before he earned any money from speeches or any outside sources and bought 5 luxury homes in Washington DC, Hawaii, California and Martha's Vineyard for  an estimated $32 million.    Wonderful how his assets after 12 years in politics rose from $100 000 to  $32 million plus, allowing him to live in absolute luxury.  An epitome of a corrupt  politician if their ever was any.             

Here you are dumbass….you can’t even Google the obvious. Obama gives 50 speeches a year at $400000 a speech. That’s $20 million a year. He has been out of office for 5 years, so there’s $100 million…not counting other sources of money.

You are totally uninformed, have no idea of how America works and are relying on dumb conspiracy theorists. In short you are a blustering fool, who seems to be incredibly lacking in self awareness. Read and learn:

Obama paid $600,000 for a single speech

In the two years since leaving the White House, former President Barack Obama has spent his time raising and solidifying his position in the uppermost echelons of the top one percent of Americans. Obama has raked in exorbitant amounts of money for public speaking events and made deals worth millions with multiple companies.

Despite his quip, made during the depths of the Great Recession, that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” there seems to be no such limit for the Obamas. His family has amassed so much wealth that even Obama himself said he was surprised in a speech in South Africa last year.

Since he left office, the former president has given an estimated 50 speeches a year to corporate audiences for hundreds of thousands of dollars per event. In 2017, the same year he left office, Obama was officially recognized as one of the top ten highest paid public speakers in the US.

Just last month, Obama was reported to have been paid nearly $600,000 to speak at the EXMA conference in Bogotá, Colombia. According to the Bogotá Post, EXMA is Colombia’s largest marketing and business event of the year and one of the largest in Latin America. Simply titled, “A conversation with President Barack Obama,” his talk purportedly addressed “influential growth strategies” in marketing and other aspects of the marketing economy.

The fact is you are extremely misleading.   I dealt with his wealth accumula tion while he was a Senator and as President.   His luxury house buying spree occurring before he made speeches, where did the money come from.

Oh let me guess….he plundered the Iranian assets while he was Senator. He went forward in his time machine, which he obtained illegally from the government fleet of time machines. Arrived in 2014 as the money was being delivered and held the crew up with his ray gun which had purloined on a prior trip to the future.

And given you can’t be accused of a crime that hasn’t been committed yet he was in the clear.

Either that, or his book Dreams of my Father, suddenly started selling strongly after he became a national figure touted as a future president.

What a moron!

Oh and the money was owed since 1979, when the average Fed rate was 9.4 %….it went as high as 13.92% in 1982. It never dropped below 4.0% until 2008. The real compound rate was actually way higher than 4.0%….and negotiating it to that level was actually an accomplishment.

You are way out of your depth Tokkie, this is economics and your bluster won’t help you here.

Everything you have said on this subject is hilariously wrong,

mozarty

ay out of depth is your protection of irregularities committed by your St Obama.    let me explain - the man became a Senator in 2004 - in an offiial statement to he Senate he claimed his total assets amounte to $100 000.   After 4 years as a Senator earning less than $180 000 per year - his assets he declared in a similar statement when he became President was $3,5 million.   How wa that possible other than through backhanders and corruption.

Obama with eight years as a President left the Whitehouse and bought fixed properties to the tune of  $32 million before he earned a cent from speeches and  other sources.   By the way he got millions in shares from private institutions - was that  while he was president or after he was President.   According to US allegations he helped some US companies to make fortunes through insider trading - same as Pelosi did recently.   By the way Obama sabotaged the Insider Trading Ac t passed by both Houses in 2014 and that is a fact too.    

By the way the situation indicated  since 2015 is clear.  Obama captured the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department to protect the Democratic Party and especially crooked leaders in that Party - same as Zuma did in South Africa.   Typical example are the Russian Hoaxes and  the Hunter Biden laptop story.    The FBI had the laptop for more than two years  and did nothing about it.                 

• 2004: He earned a salary of $80,287 from the Illinois Senate and $32,144 from the University of Chicago Law School, where he lectured. Obama also had investments in three different assets — including the Vanguard Wellington Fund — evaluated between $100,000 and $200,000.
• 2005: Obama received a multi-book deal with Random House and was given a $1.9 million advance after January 2005 for “The Audacity of Hope,” plus royalties, following his appearance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He also earned just over $847,000 that year from another book advance for “Dreams From My Father,” plus $378,237 from additional book royalties.
• 2006: Obama reported book royalties for “Dreams From My Father” of a little less than $150,000, plus $425,000 from royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”
• 2007: Obama earned almost $3.3 million from Random House book royalties and almost $816,000 from Dystel & Goderich for “Dreams From My Father.” He acquired U.S. Treasury notes valued between $500,000 and $1 million, and he invested in two 529 college savings plans — valued at between $50,000 and $100,000 each to start — for his daughters.
• 2008: When Obama was elected president, he owned somewhere between $1.1 million and $5.1 million in U.S. Treasury bills.
• 2009: Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, which came with a $1.4 million award. He donated it to a number of different charities.
• 2009-2015: Obama earned $400,000 a year as president and continued to earn book royalties, as well as interest on his investments.
• 2016-2017: Newsweek reported that Obama’s annual pension after leaving the White House is more than $200,000. He has also received fees as large as $400,000 for public speaking events. The Obamas also signed a book deal together with Penguin Random House reportedly worth more than $65 million for two books — one written by each member of the power couple.
• 2018: The Obamas founded Higher Ground Productions and signed a production deal with Netflix, according to CNBC.
• 2020: Barack Obama released his latest book, “A Promised Land.” The book is part of an unprecedented $65 million deal that also included Michelle Obama’s memoir.

Mozar

Then in 2004  Obama lied to the Senate about his assets - to be expected from him. 

If he did all those book deals -  did he had permission from the Senate iro that book deals - what was he a writer or a Senator.?   Be it as it may he was in the Senate and donations and extra  income like Advances on books is frowned upon -  if he was a Rpublican he would not get away with that one.

He also lied about his assets then  when eh became President - to be expected.    What investments you refer too in getting interest on - you mentioned the  Vanguard Wellington fund - no other investments.

The man bought the homes early in 2007 for circa $32 million. before he started earning the money you said he earned in 2017 and later.    The rest of the money came from where?    Most of what he did as a senator he did not really do in terms of the framework he was supposed to work.    But leave that be - in the end he was involved in a countless number of decisions benefitting companies and the Backhander Act he was supposed to sign he sabotaged.    Very honest of him in doing that.   

Hope he did not do a Biden and not declare his speech income to the IRS.            

In any event what has this to do with the Hungarian election?         

I never referred to anything ….that’s a published record. You just keep spluttering nonsense. It has nothing to do with the Hungarian election but  I never mentioned Obama until you wrote this nonsense:

Now back to Obama - he bought $32 million of properties BEFORE he got paid for his story and for speaking engagements.    There was a host of corrupt actions involving Obama  and that can be traced to actual money dispension like - 

No dimness you went for the wild statements about Putin's wealth of which you know nothing and can prove nothing.   Draad referred to to the unaccountable wealth of Obama - which I referred to as well.   There is nobody more crooked as a Senator and President than Obama was -  he and Biden put up a show of bribery and corruption unmatched in US history.   You tried to prove something which is not in the sworn statements when he became Senator and when he  became President.     The latter two statements are indeed public record.    

Thanks for confirming that Obama was a Senator and  President who produced zero of consequence other than being involved  in deeds that place honesty last.      Romney had Obama on the ropes in 2012 and then lost the plot and lost the election.    Not that he was any better President material than Obama.