I would sooner that Truss had introduced the 'British' concept 'the Blob' to her US audience rather than adopting the US phrase 'Deep State', but I don't think that makes it too difficult to understand the analysis unless you're stupid.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because Trump would already have thrown Ukraine under a bus .
Then driven the bus over Ukraine.
Then reversed.
...
Why did she try to cross there?
It was clearly marked with beware tanks have right of way!
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
I presume he's talking of the censorship of opposition voices in Russia, right? And the way that those who -say- produce documentaries about the corruption of the leadership get shipped off to prison camps where they sadly die.
That's the censorship he's referring to, right?
Or maybe he's talking about REDACTED or BANNED or REDACTED or CANT SAY THAT or THAT WILL GET YOU BANNED or REDACTED or BANNED REDACTED BANNED EDACTD NO NO NO NO ONLINE SAFETY ACT SHUT UP NO BANNED REDACTED
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because he would have conceded Ukraine is and always has been Russian. And that Russia can't be at war with itself.
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
Fico is another piece of traitorous scum . If Slovakia and Hungary hate being in the EU why don’t they both fxck off and become a Russian vassal state .
The tolerant Centrist Group Think
Hungary and Slovakia were happy to rake in the EU money . Orban and Fico now want to keep the money whilst actively working against the EU and supporting Putin . So they can both fxck off !
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because he would have conceded Ukraine is and always has been Russian. And that Russia can't be at war with itself.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
I presume he's talking of the censorship of opposition voices in Russia, right? And the way that those who -say- produce documentaries about the corruption of the leadership get shipped off to prison camps where they sadly die.
That's the censorship he's referring to, right?
Or maybe he's talking about REDACTED or BANNED or REDACTED or CANT SAY THAT or THAT WILL GET YOU BANNED or REDACTED or BANNED REDACTED BANNED EDACTD NO NO NO NO ONLINE SAFETY ACT SHUT UP NO BANNED REDACTED
Fucking ludicrous state of affairs
How ironic. There you go again compiling again how banned and censored you are.
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
WRT sentence structure, 'I' is better; with the verb 'to be' the declension tends to stay the same both sides. So "The person in the photo is I" reduces without remainder to: "I am the person in the photo".
Or as above "MD and I are near in intelligence".
Colloquially of course 'me' is fine, especially in parts of London.
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
WRT sentence structure, 'I' is better; with the verb 'to be' the declension tends to stay the same both sides. So "The person in the photo is I" reduces without remainder to: "I am the person in the photo".
Or as above "MD and I are near in intelligence".
Colloquially of course 'me' is fine, especially in parts of London.
In parts of London the correct pronouns would be 'bro' and 'man'.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
As I understand it kamski made a specific point, which is that Russia has a legitimate grievance that it was led to believe NATO would resist the natural and reasonable desires of post-Soviet states to join, and that this resistance didn't actually come about.
I haven't anywhere seen kamski make the utterly illogical leap (that Putin has made) that any legitimate grievance justified a brutal invasion of a sovereign nation.
Kamski is simply challenging the point that because this wasn't promised in a formal way we can deny any assurances were ever made. I don't honestly know the truth of the matter, but can see the futility in our defence being "noone said that!" There are plenty of better ways we can defend NATO expansion, not least national sovereignty.
My point was that his claim has been assessed by neutral experts (Chatham house) and judged a “myth” (they are a very polite organisation).
I’ve posted the link 2-3 times but he has never engaged on the argument, but just repeats his claim. It’s as if he doesn’t want to admit that he is wrong (not suggesting anything more nefarious than the general liberal-left tendency in Europe to blame ourselves for everything bad in the world)
Apologies @stillwaters I hadn't been directing that at you particularly - I agree the Chatham House analysis is reliable. The point i was trying to make is that I think people were fighting a straw man, not kamski's actual arguments. As Chatham House itself notes, Western leaders did make private assurances to Gorbachev, but these had no legal basis. I think (but am not sure) kamski did acknowledge this at some point. In fact I think it was all he(?) was arguing.
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
I think I'd correct viewcode's comment to "As if!"
I've just had the Best Approach Ever for my YouTube channel.
A company wants to sell a box that plugs into your Tesla, capturing video in all directions. They will then sell this footage to companies to better develop mapping software, AI tools and self-driving.
The box is $279.99 and "will deliver an ROI in 3-6 months". Payment to be made in their Crypto token which is currently valued at $0.0006
"If you're interested, please send us your terms, and we’d love to discuss how we can work together."
I've just had the Best Approach Ever for my YouTube channel.
A company wants to sell a box that plugs into your Tesla, capturing video in all directions. They will then sell this footage to companies to better develop mapping software, AI tools and self-driving.
The box is $279.99 and "will deliver an ROI in 3-6 months". Payment to be made in their Crypto token which is currently valued at $0.0006
"If you're interested, please send us your terms, and we’d love to discuss how we can work together."
I politely declined.
Do they define ROI? I'm thinking maybe 'realisation of idiocy"
Weirdly, Margaret Drabble was nearly as intelligent as me. True story
"As I"
Errrrr... isn't it "me", as @Leon is the object of the sentence, and Margaret Drabble the subject.
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
WRT sentence structure, 'I' is better; with the verb 'to be' the declension tends to stay the same both sides. So "The person in the photo is I" reduces without remainder to: "I am the person in the photo".
Or as above "MD and I are near in intelligence".
Colloquially of course 'me' is fine, especially in parts of London.
In parts of London the correct pronouns would be 'bro' and 'man'.
Comments
It was clearly marked with beware tanks have right of way!
For what it's worth, I'm struggling with the "was" bit. Presumably this is @Leon's roundabout way of saying (given she is still alive) that she used to be almost as intelligent as him, but as the drink and drugs have pickled his brain, she's overtaken him.
Fucking ludicrous state of affairs
As otherwise surely that goes without saying?
So no war could have started. Simples.
NEW THREAD
Or as above "MD and I are near in intelligence".
Colloquially of course 'me' is fine, especially in parts of London.
A company wants to sell a box that plugs into your Tesla, capturing video in all directions. They will then sell this footage to companies to better develop mapping software, AI tools and self-driving.
The box is $279.99 and "will deliver an ROI in 3-6 months". Payment to be made in their Crypto token which is currently valued at $0.0006
"If you're interested, please send us your terms, and we’d love to discuss how we can work together."
I politely declined.
ETA: Dammit, I'm back on the old thread. Byeeee.