Straggler Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: How does the 'Atlantic Council' or Anders Aslund know this, exactly? He doesn't quote anyone, or mention a source. Anyway, I'm not trying to deflect. It's pretty clear that Trump is trying to undermine the sanctions law to the greatest extent he can get away with. I can sympathise with those who say this is an outrage. However, if I'm honest, my reaction to this is coloured by my belief that sanctions are generally a bad policy, that pursuing a policy of deliberately intensifying tensions with Russia is counterproductive (or even stupid) and that this is generally an issue with which I have some sympathy with Trump (even if I think he has probably arrived at the 'correct' viewpoint for the wrong reasons). Despite that, I do agree that he shouldn't be above the law. Source confirmed by Treasury spokesperson Quote A Treasury spokesman confirmed to Buzzfeed on Tuesday that the Kremlin list had been derived from the Forbes ranking of “200 richest businessmen in Russia 2017. “The way they published this list is not being to be effective,” said Peter Harrell, a former deputy assistant secretary for counter threat finance and sanctions in the state department. “Congress’s goal was to get the administration to focus on the people Putin is dependent on. They came up with a list that includes those people and everyone else.” “It’s naming, but I’m not sure it’s actually shaming. It’s too inclusive to have any deterrent effect,” Harrell, now a senior fellow at the Centre for a New American Security, said. Aslund had been consulted on the original list and was therefore in a pretty good place to notice that it had change. Anyway it's now confirmed from other parties as you can see on the link. What interests me is that Trump is so blatant in his favoritism of all things Russian. The same guy that has had a very public spat with China, Africa, South America, Europe, NATO, the UN, even with special relationship Britain nothing is sacred, except Russia and Putin. Not a single bad word for Russia and all the love for Putin. He is even prepared to defy a law that he signed himself to protect Russian interests. Why is Russia so sacred to him when the rest of the world bares the brunt of his tantrums in an almost scatter gun effect? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, Straggler said: Source confirmed by Treasury spokesperson Aslund had been consulted on the original list and was therefore in a pretty good place to notice that it had change. Anyway it's now confirmed from other parties as you can see on the link. What interests me is that Trump is so blatant in his favoritism of all things Russian. The same guy that has had a very public spat with China, Africa, South America, Europe, NATO, the UN, even with special relationship Britain nothing is sacred, except Russia and Putin. Not a single bad word for Russia and all the love for Putin. He is even prepared to defy a law that he signed himself to protect Russian interests. Why is Russia so sacred to him when the rest of the world bares the brunt of his tantrums in an almost scatter gun effect? Thanks for the link, and the confirmation. Regarding your last question, I think there's two basic answers. One goes, he didn't have any foreign policy experience while running, he needed a 'signature' foreign policy stance that was also compatible with posing as more anti-war than an average Republican to an electorate bored of aggressive foreign policy blunders, and this was the one he/his advisors alighted on. The other is that his personal business interests/dealings in Russia mean he was a kind of Manchurian candidate all along. The cynical answer is probably all the second. I probably go with a bit of both, mostly because as above, I think it's generally a good idea to pursue better relations with other powerful countries and I dislike needless antagonism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 31, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2018 Trey Gowdy not seeking re-election, another rat off the sinking ship How many is that now? Must be hitting or exceeding record levels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, bickster said: Trey Gowdy not seeking re-election, another rat off the sinking ship How many is that now? Must be hitting or exceeding record levels Drain the swamp. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Trey Gowdy surely has to be one of the most purely thick people on the planet. Like, just an absolute simpleton. It wouldn't be a surprise to me if he couldn't count to ten. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Was officially censured for spending misbehaviour in the Benghazi game, and you have to be some kind of stupid to get caught like that in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Well, say what you will, I still have difficulty taking seriously anyone who thinks "impact" is a verb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, peterms said: Well, say what you will, I still have difficulty taking seriously anyone who thinks "impact" is a verb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Exactly. "North American". Dialect. All sorts of things are recognised as correct in their own settings, but we don't accept them generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_serpente Posted February 1, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 1, 2018 Welll...the FBI is located in North America.... My bigger disagreement with the use of impact here is that its correct use should be limited to situations of actual physical contact, but it's gradually been dragged over to the figurative realm in recent times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 1, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 1, 2018 7 hours ago, peterms said: Exactly. "North American". Dialect. All sorts of things are recognised as correct in their own settings, but we don't accept them generally. The North American usage is as a transitive verb. As an intransitive verb, it's perefectly OK in British English. You just suggested it isn't a verb at all. It is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 It counts as 'British English' if enough people in Britain, speaking English, use it so that it can be widely understood. This isn't France. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Quote Last week, the beginning of an explosive corruption trial involving eight members of Baltimore's elite Gun Trace Task Force revealed that a handful of Baltimore cops allegedly kept fake guns in their patrol cars to plant on innocent people—a failsafe they could use if they happened to shoot an unarmed suspect, the Baltimore Sun reports. Vice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 It was another big news day in the States. TBH it is getting a bit exhausting keeping up with it all. Nunes has said that he has made changes, but that they were at the request of both the democrats and the FBI. Given that the FBI said the following: Nunes memo fundamentally inaccurate Quote "With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the FBI said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." and the Democrats are the ones calling out Nunes for making the changes it seems unlikely that the material changes that are being reported are as Nunes has stated. Of course if Nunes is telling the truth I imagine it would be a relatively easy thing to produce the communication from both the FBI and the Dems proving his case..... It's like Nunes is feeling left out not being investigated for obstruction of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 In other news Another obstruction of justice witness Quote The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request. Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said. This would then put Hope Hicks in the firing line for Mueller again, as she has already been interviewed and if anything comes out that suggests she lied in that interview then she either flips on Trump or gets charged. All interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2018 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: It counts as 'British English' if enough people in Britain, speaking English, use it so that it can be widely understood. This isn't France. Canada would be more appropriate. The French Canadians are the Grammar Nazi's of the French speaking world. Normal French evolves just like British English does. The French Canadians will tell you that they speak a more pure form of French 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 1, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 1, 2018 Iirc France actually has a body set up to maintain the purity of the language, which has a shitfit when they adopt words from other languages. Most notably things like the word sandwich. Anyway... America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) it's nonsense really, language has always migrated and evolved and been appropriated, and the idea of their being something pure about any language that genders its nouns is total nonsense. If someone understands le weekend instead of le fin de semaine well enough, who gives a shit really? I used to get really annoyed when 'literally' changed meaning but it's not worth getting worked up about. Our language will become something else long after we're gone anyway. The Japanese have three distinct categories for their language don't they? Hiraguna for pure Japanese, katakana for appropriated words like computer etc and kanji for chinese characters. Seems all over the top to me. Edited February 1, 2018 by Rodders 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2018 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2018 Anyway like @Chindie says let's get this back on topic Nutters! Having taken a keen interest in US politics over the last year or so I'm struck by the amount of completely thick numbskulls the American people vote into public office. Here's just the one that I found today (as an aside from the Donald) Quote Missouri’s Hawley blames ‘sexual revolution’ for human trafficking 02/01/18 09:20 AM By Steve Benen As U.S. Senate candidates go, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) is a curious case. In 2016, he ran for state A.G. with commercials featuring men climbing ladders, complaining that ambitious politicians keeping running for offices they don’t really care about, only to climb ladders to some other office. Hawley told voters he actually wanted to serve the people of Missouri as their attorney general – and eight months after taking office, he formed his U.S. Senate exploratory committee. I can appreciate the fact that ambition and politics go hand in hand, but I’ve never seen a politician go out of his way to promise voters he wouldn’t use his office to seek higher office, only to shamelessly break that promise less than a year later. And as the Kansas City Star reported yesterday, Hawley apparently isn’t done surprising people. During a speech to pastors in Kansas City in December, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley linked the problem of sex trafficking to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. […] During a speech at a “Pastors and Pews” event hosted by the Missouri Renewal Project, Hawley tied the issue to the sexual revolution, the cultural shift in the 1960s and 1970s that eliminated the social stigma for premarital sex and contraception that had been commonplace in the United States. “We’re living now with the terrible aftereffects of this so-called revolution,” Hawley said, according to an audio recording of the event. “We have a human-trafficking crisis in our state and in this city and in our country because people are willing to purchase women, young women, and treat them like commodities. There is a market for it. Why is there? Because our culture has completely lost its way. The sexual revolution has led to exploitation of women on a scale that we would never have imagined.” He added, “You know what I’m talking about, the 1960s, 1970s, it became commonplace in our culture among our cultural elites, Hollywood, and the media, to talk about, to denigrate the biblical truth about husband and wife, man and woman.” I’ve heard conservatives complain about the “sexual revolution” and “our cultural elites,” but tying this to human trafficking is a new one. As for the political context, Hawley is a leading contender to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mon.) in the fall. The last time the Missouri senator was up for re-election, you’ll recall, then Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) alienated much of the state with his infamous rhetoric about “legitimate rape.” Though McCaskill was considered a vulnerable incumbent at the time, she ended up winning that race by nearly 16 points. Missouri may be a red state, but when Republicans make ridiculous comments about women, voters tend to run in the opposite direction. It’s something Josh Hawley may want to keep in mind. 1 MSNBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I still think he'll beat McCaskill in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts