Trump personally profited from missile-maker Raytheon’s stock jump after his Syria attack

[Best Virginia]

While the world is dealing with both the implications and the fall-out from President Donald Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian airfield on Thursday, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile used in the attack is seeing their stock surge which is good news for their investors — including the president.


As noted by the Palmer Report, Trump owns stock in Raytheon, which was reported by Business Insider in 2015.


According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC in 2015, his stock portfolio includes investments in technology firms, financial institutions and defense firms, including Raytheon.


On Thursday, Trump launched an attack on the al-Shayrat military airfield, used by both Syrian and Russian military forces, hitting it with 59 Tomahawk missiles manufactured by Raytheon. Trump’s attack on Syria was reportedly in response to a deadly gas attack launched by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people earlier in the week.


While the Tomahawk attack did little damage to the airfield — with the Syrian air force continuing to launch assaults from the same base on Friday — investors, sensing an increasing escalation in tensions between two countries and the possibility of war , pushed Raytheon stock up.


Since taking office, Trump has refused to divulge all of his financial information — including his income taxes — and refused to place his business and financial holdings in a blind trust allowing Trump and his family to move money and investments around as they see fit.

 

[atlkvb]

So by implication, he only attacked Syria for using banned poison serin nerve gas in order for us to use Tomahawk cruise missiles that would have to be manufactured and thus increase his stock shares in the company that makes them?

He's only interested in making money off the deaths of little children who were poisioned by a mad man dictator, and you support tax assisted international funding for Abortion on demand.... but Trump's the only one concerned about money in exchange for death right Best Virginia?

So what should we have done, just drawn a 'red line' in the Syrian desert sand, stood back and thrown our hands up?

I know you don't like Trump, I know you're a partisan, I get all that. But why the blatant, abject bufoonery of some of your posts? Criticize Trump over his actual policy...like maybe relaxing the ban on coal production. There's a legitimate argument you can make in opposition to one of his specific policy objectives or initiatives.

But this? Suggesting his only goal is to fire off missiles at a rouge regime comitting genocide just so he can make more money on his stock options?

If you really believe that, you are more sick than the person you are accusing.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

as a billionaire there's a good chance he makes money on about everything hi-tech...

idiot statement...

as usual...

 

[Best Virginia]

So by implication, he only attacked Syria for using banned poison serin nerve gas in order for us to use Tomahawk cruise missiles that would have to be manufactured and thus increase his stock shares in the company that makes them?

He's only interested in making money off the deaths of little children who were poisioned by a mad man dictator, and you support tax assisted international funding for Abortion on demand.... but Trump's the only one concerned about money in exchange for death right Best Virginia?

So what should we have done, just drawn a 'red line' in the Syrian desert sand, stood back and thrown our hands up?

I know you don't like Trump, I know you're a partisan, I get all that. But why the blatant, abject bufoonery of some of your posts? Criticize Trump over his actual policy...like maybe relaxing the ban on coal production. There's a legitimate argument you can make in opposition to one of his specific policy objectives or initiatives.

But this? Suggesting his only goal is to fire off missiles at a rouge regime comitting genocide just so he can make more money on his stock options?

If you really believe that, you are more sick than the person you are accusing.

I didn't suggest or accuse anything. I posted a fact. Here are some more facts. Trump has routinely tweeted that the President needs congressional approval to use military force, something he didn’t seek.Trump has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US without so much as a second thought on where they should go, other than back to Assad. Just days before Assad's attack, Team Trump said "we will not demand Assad's ouster' and his "future will be "up to the Syrian people" effectively giving the go ahead for Assad to act with impunity. Suddenly, I'm to believe that Trump feels a “responsibility” to the Syrian people? Forgive me if I call out the facts on Trump's sudden "caring" 180. I know as a Donnie cheerleader you're not used to hearing facts. If these statements of fact enrage you this much. maybe you should stick to Breitbart and Fox.

 

[wvu2007]

Shut up Bud. No one on here likes you, including the liberals on the board.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Shut up Bud. No one on here likes you, including the liberals on the board.

Refute his claims.......

 

[atlkvb]

Refute his claims.......

Happy to...easy to do also beause as usual he is 100% factually incorrect:

1) The President is Commander-in-Chief, and as such he can order military action whenever he believes it's in our national interest. Congress can declare War, but in no way was this considered a declaration of War, nor was Congressional approval of the military action sought or needed. If Obama had followed up on his phony "red line threat", he also did not need Congressional approval to back up his rhetoric vis-a-vis Syria.

2) Syrian refugees, (or any others on that list of nations) are not "banned". That's media spin. They are subjected to enhanced scrutiny, thorough questoning, and yes, in some cases they may be denied admission if a clear reason for their travel into this counry cannot be establsihed. A Moratorium on their massive immigration or uncondtitonal acceptance created by Obama, and suppored by Hillary (in greater numbers) is what Trump's policy reversed.

3) Trump is following a standing U.S. policy of not plotting to overthrow a legitimate Foreign leader, but he has indeed joined our Allies in calling for Assad to step down. If we wanted to depose him we could, but Syria is a soverign nation and Trump is correct suggesting his future should be decided by the Syrian people. However, we have called for his removal from office by the Syrian people, along with free elections for new leadership & Trump backs that standing U.S. position.

4) Trump acted to prevent an obvious case of human genocide and Syria's willfull violation of U.N. protocols along with an international ban on the use deadly nerve gas. He was correct in doing so, and it was much more effective than Obama's feckless "red line". Use of the nerve gas has inded stopped, but Syrian troops continue to slaughter innocent citizens.

I know you and Best Virginia are hopelessly brainwashed by the the corrupt and incompetent main stream news media, but if you would endavor to investigate other fact based analysis of daily events instead of injecting the opiate of their (MSM) biased and hate filled Trump reporting into your brains, you might actually learn something or at least be more interesting posters instead of the mindless sycophants you both demonostrate yourselves to be simply regurgitating their fact contorted babble.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Happy to...easy to do also beause as usual he is 100% factually incorrect:

1) The President is Commander-in-Chief, and as such he can order military action whenever he believes it's in our national interest. Congress can declare War, but in no way was this considered a declaration of War, nor was Congressional approval of the military action sought or needed. If Obama had followed up on his phony "red line threat", he also did not need Congressional approval to back up his rhetoric vis-a-vis Syria.

2) Syran refugees, (or any others on that list of nations) are not "banned". That's media spin. They are subjected to enhanced scrutiny, thorough questoning, and yes, in some cases they may be denied admission if a clear reason for their travel into this counry cannot be establsihed. A Moratorium on their massive immigration or uncondtitonal acceptance created by Obama, and suppored by Hillary (in greater numbers) is what Trump's policy reversed.

3) Trump is following a standing U.S. policy of not plotting to overthrow a legitimate Foreign leader, but he has indeed joined our Allies in calling for Assad to step down. If we wanted to depose him we could, but Syria is a soverign nation and Trump is correct suggesting his future should be decided by the Syrian people. However, we have called for his removal from office by the Syrian people, along with free elections for new leadership & Trump backs that standing U.S. position.

4) Trump acted to prevent an obvious case of human genocide and Syria's willfull violation of U.N. protocols along with an international ban on the use deadly nerve gas. He was correct in doing so, and it was much more effective than Obama's feckless "red line". Use of the nerve gas has inded stopped, but Syrian troops continue to slaughter innocent citizens.

I know you and Best Virginia are hopelessly brainwashed by the the corrupt and incompetent main stream news media, but if you would endavor to investigate other fact based analysis of daily events instead of injecting the opiate of their (MSM) biased and hate filled Trump reporting into your brains, you might actually learn something or at least be more interesting posters instead of the mindless sycophants you both demonostrate yourselves to be simply regurgitating their fact contorted babble.

Overkill.....but that's just my opinion. You might have stated "facts", but you didn't refute his claims:

1. Trump has routinely tweeted that the President needs congressional approval to use military force, something he didn’t seek. (Provide evidence that Trump didn't tweet this)
2. Trump has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US without so much as a second thought on where they should go, other than back to Assad. (Provide evidence where Trump has helped those attempting to escape Assad)
3. Just days before Assad's attack, Team Trump said "we will not demand Assad's ouster' and his "future will be "up to the Syrian people" effectively giving the go ahead for Assad to act with impunity. Suddenly, I'm to believe that Trump feels a “responsibility” to the Syrian people? (Provide evidence that Trump did not say this)

Now, doing that would then refute the OP's claim. And before you get your panties in a wad, I'm not defending anyone here. I hope Trump takes more action in Syria. One of the first things I've been 100% supportive of since he's been president. Unlike the right wingers who could never side with Obama, I can agree with Trump when he does some things.

 

[atlkvb]

Overkill.....but that's just my opinion. You might have stated "facts", but you didn't refute his claims:

1. Trump has routinely tweeted that the President needs congressional approval to use military force, something he didn’t seek. (Provide evidence that Trump didn't tweet this)
2. Trump has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US without so much as a second thought on where they should go, other than back to Assad. (Provide evidence where Trump has helped those attempting to escape Assad)
3. Just days before Assad's attack, Team Trump said "we will not demand Assad's ouster' and his "future will be "up to the Syrian people" effectively giving the go ahead for Assad to act with impunity. Suddenly, I'm to believe that Trump feels a “responsibility” to the Syrian people? (Provide evidence that Trump did not say this)

Now, doing that would then refute the OP's claim. And before you get your panties in a wad, I'm not defending anyone here. I hope Trump takes more action in Syria. One of the first things I've been 100% supportive of since he's been president. Unlike the right wingers who could never side with Obama, I can agree with Trump when he does some things.

You asked me to refute his post # 4. I took what he said in that post point by point. If you are now asking me to also refute his post OP #1, that too can easily be done because it too is factually incorrect.

Trump's stock holdings are not placed in a "blind trust", he simply has removed his personal active participation in managing his portfolios while he serves as President. There is nothing that says his Family has given up control over managing his holdings or that he has sold off any of his investments.

Raytheon is a primary contractor for the cruise missile system, but there are many other suppliers, subcontractors,and manufacturers of various components of that missile system, especially it's guidance systems and telemetry tracking systems which are mission critical to its successful operation that Trump has no direct personal vested financial interest in...so the claim that use of the cruise missiles only benefits him personally because of hs Raytheon holdings is disingenous at best if not altogether inaccurate.

I haven't personally read Trump's financial statements or reviewed his full portfolio, but if he has disclosed those holdings as Best Virginia pointed out in his OP, then obviously Trump is not hiding where his investments are placed even if they are with huge Defense contractors. Lots of other Americans also hold stock positions in these companies, and no one is suggesting anything nefarious from their benefitting due to use of the cruise missiles which is not the only thing Raytheon builds for the Pentagon. Trump's tax returns have nothing to do with his personal financial investment portfolio outside of the income his holdings have generated.

The OP from Best Virginia was not only incorrect factually, but it implied sinsiter motives by Trump with nothing factual to back up the assertion or claims. Yet you are challenging me to "refute" what in fact was a baseless story, or at least baseless claims made in an attempt to suggest Trump is benefitting financially from the order to fire those missiles at Syria and he has no other purpose or objective in doing so.

The OP Best Virginia was wrong, wrong, wrong, and dead wrong.

Now refute why it isn't MountaineerWV?

 

[MountaineerWV]

You asked me to refute his post # 4. I took what he said in that post point by point. If you are now asking me to also refute his post OP #1, that too can easily be done because it too is factually incorrect.

Trump's stock holdings are not placed in a "blind trust", he simply has removed his personal active participation in managin his portfolios while he serves as President. There is nothing that says his Family has given up control over managing his holdings or that he has sold off any of his investments.

Raytheon is a primary contractor for the cruise missile system, but there are many other suppliers, subcontractors,and manufacturers of various components of that missile system, especially it's guidance systems and telemetry tracking systems which are mission critical to its successful operation that Trump has no direct personal vested financial interest in...so the claim that use of the cruise missiles only benefits him personally because of hs Raytheon holdings is disingenous at best if not altogether inaccurate.

I haven't personally read Trump's financial statements or reviewed his full portfolio, but if he has disclosed those holdings as Best Virginia pointed out in his OP, then obviously Trump is not hiding where his investments are placed even if they are with huge Defense contractors. Lots of other Americans also hold stock positions in these companies, and no one is suggesting anything nefarious from their benefitting due to use of the cruise missiles which is not the only thing Raytheon builds for the Pentagon. Trump's tax returns have nothing to do with his personal financial investment portfolio outside of the income his holdings have generated.

The OP from Best Virginia was not only incorrect factually, but it implied sinsiter motives by Trump with nothing factual to back up the assertion or claims. Yet you are challenging me to "refute" what in fact was a baseless story, or at least baseless claims made in an attempt to suggest Trump is benefitting financially from the order to fire those missiles at Syria and he has no other purpose or objective in doing so.

The OP Best Virginia was wrong, wrong, wrong, and dead wrong.

Now refute why it isn't MountaineerWV?

You must be reading something entirely different than what I am......I did ask for #4 post, and it had nothing to do with the financial situation or anything......to make it simpler, I will AGAIN post what the guy wrote and will put it in BOLD and NUMBER (did that last time) outline to help you out some....

1. Trump has routinely tweeted that the President needs congressional approval to use military force, something he didn’t seek. (Provide evidence that Trump didn't tweet this)
2. Trump has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US without so much as a second thought on where they should go, other than back to Assad. (Provide evidence where Trump has helped those attempting to escape Assad)
3. Just days before Assad's attack, Team Trump said "we will not demand Assad's ouster' and his "future will be "up to the Syrian people" effectively giving the go ahead for Assad to act with impunity. Suddenly, I'm to believe that Trump feels a “responsibility” to the Syrian people? (Provide evidence that Trump did not say this)

Now, what you posted did not cover #1 at all.....you focused on Trump's financials. That has nothing to do with the #1,2,3 above.......

 

[atlkvb]

Trump has routinely tweeted that the President needs congressional approval to use military force, something he didn’t seek. (Provide evidence that Trump didn't tweet this)

I answered this challenge or "claim" in post # 7 (question 1)

Trump has banned Syrian refugees from entering the US without so much as a second thought on where they should go, other than back to Assad. (Provide evidence where Trump has helped those attempting to escape Assad)

I explained Trump's immigration policy in post #7 (question 2) which directly refutes this claim

Just days before Assad's attack, Team Trump said "we will not demand Assad's ouster' and his "future will be "up to the Syrian people" effectively giving the go ahead for Assad to act with impunity. Suddenly, I'm to believe that Trump feels a “responsibility” to the Syrian people? (Provide evidence that Trump did not say this)

I didn't assert or challenge Trump's "tweet" in answering this charge or assertion in post #7, however I did attempt to explain both Trump's and official US policy regarding regime change in post #7 (question 3)...which directly responds to your bold in this question.

I am trying to respond directly to the OP, and your challenge to me to "refute" the OP's following claims in post #4 after which you specifically challenged me to "refute his claims".

I have done all you have asked me to do, and responded factually to every assertion both you and Best Virginia have made in this thread which are once again both factually incorrect, as well as ill informed.

Now answer this queston for me.

What has Trump done wrong in this Syrian situation where all you can muster is a chance to criticize him? What should he have done differently that is more correct in your opinion?

 

[MountaineerWV]

What has Trump done wrong in this Syrian situation where all you can muster the ability to do is criticize him?

You must have me confused with someone else.......I haven't EVER criticized his actions on Syria. I've only been supportive. And all I read was a lot of overkill to answer 3 simple claims....and still struggle to find any factual rebuttal that directly answered them. But....that's fine. Enjoy this glorious Sunday of the Masters.

 

[atlkvb]

You must have me confused with someone else.......I haven't EVER criticized his actions on Syria. I've only been supportive. And all I read was a lot of overkill to answer 3 simple claims....and still struggle to find any factual rebuttal that directly answered them. But....that's fine. Enjoy this glorious Sunday of the Masters.

You're not reading my responses if you think I have not directly answered and/or refuted your questions or claims in this thread. But I'm not suprised, I have asked you many other questions in many other threads that you simply walk away from. Facts and you don't agree apparently.

You still have not answered the questions about Obama's economy I asked you to post for me the other day...among other things. So why is the cast iron skillet calling out the Black kettle?

 

[MountaineerWV]

You're not reading my responses if you think I have not directly answered and/or refuted your questions or claims in this thread. But I'm not suprised, I have asked you many other questions in many other threads that you simply walk away from. Facts and you don't agree apparently.

You still have not answered the questions about Obama's economy I asked you to post for me the other day...among other things. So why is the cast iron skillet calling out the Black kettle?

Well, to my defense, I was out of town on business.......

But, since you asked again, here is what I got on my research of Obama's economic growth:

"It’s official.

With Thursday’s final revision of fourth-quarter GDP growth to 2.1 percent from its previous 1.9 percent level, President Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Obama’s best year, as far as growing the economy, was 2015 when it grew 2.6 percent from 2014 — after growing 2.4 percent that year from 2013.

The recovering economy — and steady job growth — gave Obama lots of momentum, but the economy sputtered again last year, Commerce reported Thursday."

Now, if I recall, you made the claim that Obama NEVER reached above 2%. Correct? And you definitely said didn't reach over 2.5%......well, according to this article which says Obama was "one of the worse economic presidents" (so it's agreeing with you), he was above 2% and also was above 2.5% once.

But, that's just my research.....I'm sure it will be thrown out as "fake"......

 

[atlkvb]

Yes it is "

Well, to my defense, I was out of town on business.......

But, since you asked again, here is what I got on my research of Obama's economic growth:

"It’s official.

With Thursday’s final revision of fourth-quarter GDP growth to 2.1 percent from its previous 1.9 percent level, President Obama is the only president since Herbert Hoover to not have guided the US economy to 3 percent growth in any year he was in office.

The US economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016 from the previous years, according to the Commerce Department, which tracks GDP.

Obama’s best year, as far as growing the economy, was 2015 when it grew 2.6 percent from 2014 — after growing 2.4 percent that year from 2013.

The recovering economy — and steady job growth — gave Obama lots of momentum, but the economy sputtered again last year, Commerce reported Thursday."

Now, if I recall, you made the claim that Obama NEVER reached above 2%. Correct? And you definitely said didn't reach over 2.5%......well, according to this article which says Obama was "one of the worse economic presidents" (so it's agreeing with you), he was above 2% and also was above 2.5% once.

But, that's just my research.....I'm sure it will be thrown out as "fake"......

Yes it is MoutaineerWV because as you know I also stated that Obama's overall economic performance was the worst of any US President since World War II. I also pointed out in that post that his overall yearly record rarely if ever exceeded 2.5% (even in adjusted years) and I asked you to post for me what his actual average was for his entire 8 years (not just the last two or 3)

So no matter how hard you try to spin it, the fact remains he (Obama) had the worst economic performance of any US President since World War Two, and he is the only US President to have not exceeed more than 3% real GDP during his entire terms in Office.

Again, facts and you don't agree with each other, but you keep trying to twist them to fit your blind loyalty to that failed Presidency.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Yes it is "


Yes it is MoutaineerWV because as you know I also stated that Obama's overall economic performance was the worst of any US President since World War II. I also pointed out in that post that his overall yearly record rarely if ever exceeded 2.5% (even in adjusted years) and I asked you to post for me what his actual average was for his entire 8 years (not just the last two or 3)

So no matter how hard you try to spin it, the fact remains he (Obama) had the worst economic performance of any US President since World War Two, and he is the only US President to have not exceeed more than 3% real GDP during his entire terms in Office.

Again, facts and you don't agree with each other, but you keep trying to twist them to fit your blind loyalty to that failed Presidency.

You stated (can't remember exact quote) for me to show you when Obama EVER reached 2% GDP growth. Well, I did show you. And now your response is "fake". Typical.

 

[atlkvb]

You stated (can't remember exact quote) for me to show you when Obama EVER reached 2% GDP growth. Well, I did show you. And now your response is "fake". Typical.

No MountaineerWV, I posted in that thread that Obama's real GDP hardly ever exceeded or approached more than 2.5%. (You posted that in fact that is correct) I also said he had the worst overall economic performance of any US President since World War II, and was the first since then to NEVER reach at least 3.0% or more during his entire term in Office.

What's "fake" in anything I just posted reminding you of what my OP was?

 

[MountaineerWV]

No MountaineerWV, I posted in that thread that Obama's real GDP hardly ever exceeded or approached more than 2.5%. (You posted that in fact that is correct) I also said he had the worst overall economic performance of any US President since World War II, and was the first since then to NEVER reach at least 3.0% or more during his entire term in Office.

What's "fake" in anything I just posted reminding you of what my OP was?

This is what you said......

So when did Obama ever exceed or even approach more than 2 or 2.5% real GDP during ANY of the 8 years of his so called "jobs expansion"?

I provide the numbers that showed he did approach, and exceed, the 2% numbers you had and did exceed the 2.5% as well. Now, he didn't exceed 3%......that's true. But that wasn't what I was out to disprove.

 

[atlkvb]

This is what you said......



I provide the numbers that showed he did approach, and exceed, the 2% numbers you had and did exceed the 2.5% as well. Now, he didn't exceed 3%......that's true. But that wasn't what I was out to disprove.

He "exceded" 2% growth how many times in 8 years MountaineerWV? He approached 2.5% or exceeded it how many times in 8 years? His average for 8 years was above 2%? His overall performance for 8 years exceeded 3%?

This is what I asked you to show me, and you did, which proved I was right.

 

[mofo]

McDonald Douglas
builds cruise missle

 

[atlkvb]

McDonald Douglas
builds cruise missle

The Left...they can't even get their hated Military contractors straight! Considering the OP who made the baseless charge, why am I not surprised?

 

[atlkvb]

I didn't suggest or accuse anything. I posted a fact.

Apparently your "fact" here of the cruise missile's primary manufacturer has been "fact checked" and found to be inaccurate by mofo. So your whole post is a misguied missile aimed at Trump.

 

[mofo]

McDonald Douglas has been building the Tomohawk cruise missile for approx 30 +
years....

sorry
stupid is stupid....

 

[atlkvb]

McDonald Douglas has been building the Tomohawk cruise missile for approx 30 +
years....

sorry
stupid is stupid....

Are you sure of this mofo?

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/

 

[mofo]

only changes is if one of the company's
were purchased, by the other

yes i am certain. ...
i worked for USNavy for 30+ years....

and worked allot on DDGs...

back to masters....
plse do not respond

 

[Best Virginia]

only changes is if one of the company's
were purchased, by the other

yes i am certain. ...
i worked for USNavy for 30+ years....

and worked allot on DDGs...

back to masters....
plse do not respond

Donnie's cheerleader ("mofo" ) wrong again. Nothing unusual there. "sorry stupid is stupid.... " right mofo? [laughing]




"The Tomahawk (US /ˈtɑːməhɔːk/ or UK /ˈtɒməhɔːk/) is a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile. Introduced by General Dynamics in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and after corporate divestitures and acquisitions, is now made by Raytheon. Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by McDonnell Douglas."

 

[Best Virginia]

The Left...they can't even get their hated Military contractors straight! Considering the OP who made the baseless charge, why am I not surprised?

Don't believe everything you hear or read from the Trump worshipers. I've been trying to tell you that for how long now?

 

[atlkvb]

Don't believe everything you hear or read from the Trump worshipers. I've been trying to tell you that for how long now?

I'm not sure actually Best Virginia. I googled it and it did say Raytheon is the primary contractor so you are correct at least on that. However mofo says Raytheon is now part of McDonald Douglas, which if true makes your assertion false.

I've been trying to get you to stop swollowing all the propaganda about Trump from his Leftist media detractors. They're more wrong about him than you may be right about this (who makes Tomahawk cruise missiles)?

 

[atlkvb]

Don't believe everything you hear or read from the Trump worshipers. I've been trying to tell you that for how long now?

Looks like mofo was correct Best Virginia. You've been officially identified as "ill informed" by the MSM.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/04/business/two-giants-join-a-merger-parade-in-arms-industry.html

http://cnnfn.cnn.com/1996/07/30/deals/mcdonnell_raytheon/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB838682274450883000

 

[Best Virginia]

I'm not sure actually Best Virginia. I googled it and it did say Raytheon is the primary contractor so you are correct at least on that. However mofo says Raytheon is now part of McDonald Douglas, which if true makes your assertion false.

I've been trying to get you to stop swollowing all the propaganda about Trump from his Leftist media detractors. They're more wrong about him than you may be right about this (who makes Tomahawk cruise missiles)?

Me make it simple. Donnie buy Ratheon stock. Donnie fire lots Ratheon missles. Donnie missiles go BOOM! Donnie Ratheon stock go UP like BOOM BOOM!! Donnie profit!! Donnie tell world he don't care bout money...that why he buy stock. World say that don't make sense. Donnie fan say that make perfect sense!![thumbsup]

"tapp"

 

[atlkvb]

Me make it simple. Donnie buy Ratheon stock. Donnie fire lots Ratheon missles. Donnie missiles go BOOM! Donnie Ratheon stock go UP like BOOM BOOM!! Donnie profit!! Donnie tell world he don't care bout money...that why he buy stock. World say that don't make sense. Donnie fan say that make perfect sense!![thumbsup]

"tapp"

So if any Leftists own Raytheon stock Donnie must be trying to help them out too right Best Virginia? Or all Leftists have divested their Raytheon holdings in protest over Trumps blatant use of the Military to enrich his personal portfolio?

Which is it?

 

[lenny4wvu]

While the world is dealing with both the implications and the fall-out from President Donald Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian airfield on Thursday, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile used in the attack is seeing their stock surge which is good news for their investors — including the president.


As noted by the Palmer Report, Trump owns stock in Raytheon, which was reported by Business Insider in 2015.


According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC in 2015, his stock portfolio includes investments in technology firms, financial institutions and defense firms, including Raytheon.


On Thursday, Trump launched an attack on the al-Shayrat military airfield, used by both Syrian and Russian military forces, hitting it with 59 Tomahawk missiles manufactured by Raytheon. Trump’s attack on Syria was reportedly in response to a deadly gas attack launched by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people earlier in the week.


While the Tomahawk attack did little damage to the airfield — with the Syrian air force continuing to launch assaults from the same base on Friday — investors, sensing an increasing escalation in tensions between two countries and the possibility of war , pushed Raytheon stock up.


Since taking office, Trump has refused to divulge all of his financial information — including his income taxes — and refused to place his business and financial holdings in a blind trust allowing Trump and his family to move money and investments around as they see fit.

U

While the world is dealing with both the implications and the fall-out from President Donald Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian airfield on Thursday, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile used in the attack is seeing their stock surge which is good news for their investors — including the president.


As noted by the Palmer Report, Trump owns stock in Raytheon, which was reported by Business Insider in 2015.


According to Trump’s financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC in 2015, his stock portfolio includes investments in technology firms, financial institutions and defense firms, including Raytheon.


On Thursday, Trump launched an attack on the al-Shayrat military airfield, used by both Syrian and Russian military forces, hitting it with 59 Tomahawk missiles manufactured by Raytheon. Trump’s attack on Syria was reportedly in response to a deadly gas attack launched by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against his own people earlier in the week.


While the Tomahawk attack did little damage to the airfield — with the Syrian air force continuing to launch assaults from the same base on Friday — investors, sensing an increasing escalation in tensions between two countries and the possibility of war , pushed Raytheon stock up.


Since taking office, Trump has refused to divulge all of his financial information — including his income taxes — and refused to place his business and financial holdings in a blind trust allowing Trump and his family to move money and investments around as they see fit.

Kind of like how your mom "profited",when you were "concived".. lmmfao!

 

[Best Virginia]

U

Kind of like how your mom "profited",when you were "concived".. lmmfao!

"lmmfao"?? Do you realize you just called yourself a 'mother f*cker'? I guess you do. Wow. Okay....[sick]

 

[Best Virginia]

So if any Leftists own Raytheon stock Donnie must be trying to help them out too right Best Virginia? Or all Leftists have divested their Raytheon holdings in protest over Trumps blatant use of the Military to enrich his personal portfolio?

Which is it?

"tapp"[thumbsup]

 

[atlkvb]

"tapp"[thumbsup]

Hey Best Virginia...do you know anyone happily carrying the Leftist banner of Truth such as yourself who also owns any military contractor stock?

I was just wondering since you're so upset with Trump using the Military to enrich his portfolio.

I would think all dedicated Leftists to the cause such as yourself would make sure they are divested from such "evil" instruments of human destruction, especially since Trump is calling the shots over their use now.

Just wondering?

 

[WVU82_rivals]

Australia selects Raytheon for $1.5 billion ground-based air defense system

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-raytheon-australia-idUSKBN17C0BH

The Australian government on Monday selected U.S.-based defense contractor Raytheon Co as the sole bidder for a ground-based air defense system contract worth up to A$2 billion ($1.50 billion).

The surface-to-air missile system will replace the country's 30-year-old short-range capability, which is due to be retired by early next decade, Defence Minister Marise Payne said in a statement.

"A modern and integrated ground-based air defense system is needed to protect our deployed forces from increasingly sophisticated air threats, both globally and within our region," Payne said.

Australia, a staunch U.S. ally, last year committed to increase defense spending by nearly A$30 billion over the next 10 years at a time when China's economic and military power is growing throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia has been streamlining its military tendering process to more quickly acquire equipment. Raytheon Australia will receive a single supplier limited request for tender (RFT) for the ground-based air defense system by the end of June, the government said.

Raytheon Australia said its proposal was based on the Raytheon/Kongsberg Gruppen ASA National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System in use by seven countries, including the United States, Norway, Finland, Spain and the Netherlands.

"Our solution combines proven U.S. and Norwegian technology and Australian innovation backed by local integration and sustainment capability," said Raytheon Australia Managing Director Michael Ward.

 

[Best Virginia]

Hey Best Virginia...do you know anyone happily carrying the Leftist banner of Truth such as yourself who also owns any military contractor stock?

I was just wondering since you're so upset with Trump using the Military to enrich his portfolio.

I would think all dedicated Leftists to the cause such as yourself would make sure they are divested from such "evil" instruments of human destruction, especially since Trump is calling the shots over their use now.

Just wondering?

Dude, you're off the rails. Stop making **** up... seriously. I posted an article stating a fact, that DonnieJ Trump owns stock in Ratheon. Stock that went up after the attack. All your ******** accusations about being 'upset' and such are pure lies. Stop being a lying troll.

 

[atlkvb]

Dude, you're off the rails. Stop making **** up... seriously. I posted an article stating a fact, that DonnieJ Trump owns stock in Ratheon. Stock that went up after the attack. All your ******** accusations about being 'upset' and such are pure lies. Stop being a lying troll.

You posted it true enough, but why Best Virginia? Who buys stock and doesn't expect it to go up? Stop trying to be cute and tell me why it's even relevant that Trump (or anyone else including Leftists) owns Raytheon stock?

What's your point?

 

[atlkvb]

Dude, you're off the rails. Stop making **** up... seriously. I posted an article stating a fact, that DonnieJ Trump owns stock in Ratheon. Stock that went up after the attack. All your ******** accusations about being 'upset' and such are pure lies. Stop being a lying troll.

OK Best Virginia let's cut to the chase here in this thread.

Let's stipulate Trump indeed owns Raytheon stock, and let's also state that the stock increased after the Syrian attack (although we don't know if it was on an upswing well before then anyway) but for the sake of argument let's assume it was because of the Syrian missile strike that Trump ordered?

Question: Is the fact that the stock went up illegal?

Question: Is there any evidence to indicate this is the reason Trump ordered the missile attack...to increase Raytheon stock?

Question: Is Trump the only holder of Raytheon stock who stood to benefit from his order to fire the missiles?

Question: Is it improper to hold stock in Defense contractors, and expect it to increase?

Question: Should all investments in Military contractors be disbanded once hostilities erupt?

Question: Should we even have military contractors who build weapons that kill people and are used to do so?

Finally: Is there a crime or even a hint of illegality being alleged here in this post? If so, what is it? If not, why was the following thread posted?

"Trump personally profited from missile-maker Raytheon’s stock jump after his Syria attack"

 

[mofo]

Democrats was always been
"SOFT" on Defense....

This, that or whatever,
Democrats are SOFT