Who said anything about trust? Why not just "nothing" them?
Wonder whether this is a generational thing. Most friends of my generation worry far more about the Middle East than Russia. In my parents' generation it seems to be the opposite.
Yes, it's definitely generational. Those who grew up before 1989 feared the Soviets and those who have grown up since fear the ME more.
To come back on thread, I think there is going to be a quite significant shift in US foreign policy in the next few years, as the country becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels. A lot of the realpolitik of the last few decades in places like Saudi and Russia will rapidly unwind the minute the USA no longer depend on them for oil. Another reason why an oil man (who presumably knows where a lot of bodies are buried) is an inspired choice as Secretary of State.
@Roger - Putin is certainly more predictable than Trump and certainly much smarter. I don't trust him though because Russia's interests are not ours.
When it comes to the Middle East and fighting radical Islam we're closer to allies with Russia than we are with Saudi Arabia. Obama failed to recognise that which is why he will go down in history as one of the worst peacetime presidents for US power.
@glw - GOP leaders in the house & Senate have welcomed what Obama has done. Their only criticism is that he should have gone further sooner. John MCain is organising a Senate hearing on Russian hacking activity for later this week. Trump is increasingly isolated on this.
I'm wondering if Trump is going to go curve ball on SCOTUS nomination in revenge for the Senate not towing the line on Russia being soft cuddly fluffy teddy bears.
Richard Grenell on New Years Eve, when no one is watching, the US govt confirms that the Russians didn't hack the power grid. https://t.co/FKanHisbrL
#Fakenews
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
Sure, people should take appropriate care, but we should still blame thief rather than the victim.
What the DNC did was, in these terms, open the door and invite the burgular in and then leave their key with the burgular while they went on holiday for two weeks. It's not a case an open window or your more disgusting and telling comparison of short skirts.
I agree Trump will make the US much more isolationist. That, of course, is not a luxury the UK has. Russia is not interested in isolationism, but expansion - actual geographic or via influence. That is not good for us.
To come back on thread, I think there is going to be a quite significant shift in US foreign policy in the next few years, as the country becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels.
More broadly one of the bright spots of present day circumstances is that renewables are really starting to make sense economically and not just to mitigate AGW or fulfil treaty commitments. I don't think Trump can do much damage to the long term trend away from carbon fuels.
Richard Grenell on New Years Eve, when no one is watching, the US govt confirms that the Russians didn't hack the power grid. https://t.co/FKanHisbrL
#Fakenews
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
Sure, people should take appropriate care, but we should still blame thief rather than the victim.
Insurance companies disagree - the concept of negligence arises.
For myself, I think ramming home messages about basic precautions (e.g. keeping windows shut, not going about alone after dark) prevents people becoming victims in the first place, which is the more important thing.
That's why I've spent 24 hours tightening my e-security and changing passwords after an attempted hack. The fact that the DNC (or Clinton) failed to take such elementary precautions when they knew cyberattacks had been attempted is to my mind sheer folly.
That does not in any way excuse the criminals who carried it out, but it does raise entirely legitimate questions about the victims' judgment.
I agree Trump will make the US much more isolationist. That, of course, is not a luxury the UK has. Russia is not interested in isolationism, but expansion - actual geographic or via influence. That is not good for us.
We'll see what Trump's policy is about. But as you point out, Russia and Putin are quite predictable. Coming up with a strategy to counter Russian influence probably isn't that difficult, but it means getting into bed with some nasty people that liberal sensibilities won't stand up to.
I certainly trust Putin more than Trump and believe he is a much safer pair of hands on the world 's tiller. Don't you?
* I trust him to one day engineer the killing of people in the Baltics and blame it on somebody else. * I trust people on PB to believe him and blame the killed instead of the killers.
Obama is getting a lot of stick at the moment for his aggressive stance on Russia just after the Russians seem to have brokered a peace deal in Syria.
Obama is probably afraid that something is going to happen, or not happen, in the next 19 days which is going to be for his legacy what Tehran was for Carter's.
Well the fact that the USA has been completely frozen out of the peace talks in Syria is an absolute humiliation for the west. Obama has been a complete and utter disaster for US foreign policy, probably worse than Dubya.
And by extension a humiliation for us, as we're flying along on US coat-tails. And we're now doubling down on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which won't be great news if there's a *real* Arab Spring.
It was the US' own ham-fisted support for (initiation of?) the Turkey coup that sent Erdogan into the arms of Russia. Their own meddling has buggered them. It would take a heart of stone etc.
Let's hope there isn't a real Arab spring in Saudi, because - taking recent history as an example - the great likelihood is that the Saudi royal family would be replaced by Islamists. Sitting on the world's biggest oil reserves, and possessing one of the world's biggest militaries.
That's not a spring, that's terrorist blowback. The protest movement in Saudi Arabia doesn't have anything to do with ISIS.
But ISIS like figures could take advantage.
Let's get it straight. We couldn't even tolerate Morsi - who was no ISIS - and won a legitimate victory.
We really don't care about democracy or freedom. Just whether they are on our side or not. Therefore, a murderer like Sisi gets an audience with the Queen. And, Theresa May [ and all before her ] grovels in front of the Saudi King.
Richard Grenell on New Years Eve, when no one is watching, the US govt confirms that the Russians didn't hack the power grid. https://t.co/FKanHisbrL
#Fakenews
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
@MaxPB - liberals are no longer in charge. It's now down to you no-nonsense, cold-blooded, dispassionate, ruthless conservatives to sort everything out. Forget about us bed-wetting, effete, quisling, pacifist liberals. It's your game.
@MaxPB - liberals are no longer in charge. It's now down to you no-nonsense, cold-blooded, dispassionate, ruthless conservatives to sort everything out. Forget about us bed-wetting, effete, quisling, pacifist liberals. It's your game.
And yet it was Obama who chucked out the Russians.
@glw - GOP leaders in the house & Senate have welcomed what Obama has done. Their only criticism is that he should have gone further sooner. John MCain is organising a Senate hearing on Russian hacking activity for later this week. Trump is increasingly isolated on this.
But the Russians rescued him from bankruptcy. Putin holds all the cards.
I would not even be surprised if a year from now, we start hearing that Russia is really an ally of the west. They are Caucasian, Christian and anti-Islamist. What's not to like ?
Obama is getting a lot of stick at the moment for his aggressive stance on Russia just after the Russians seem to have brokered a peace deal in Syria.
Obama is probably afraid that something is going to happen, or not happen, in the next 19 days which is going to be for his legacy what Tehran was for Carter's.
Well the fact that the USA has been completely frozen out of the peace talks in Syria is an absolute humiliation for the west. Obama has been a complete and utter disaster for US foreign policy, probably worse than Dubya.
And by extension a humiliation for us, as we're flying along on US coat-tails. And we're now doubling down on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which won't be great news if there's a *real* Arab Spring.
It was the US' own ham-fisted support for (initiation of?) the Turkey coup that sent Erdogan into the arms of Russia. Their own meddling has buggered them. It would take a heart of stone etc.
Let's hope there isn't a real Arab spring in Saudi, because - taking recent history as an example - the great likelihood is that the Saudi royal family would be replaced by Islamists. Sitting on the world's biggest oil reserves, and possessing one of the world's biggest militaries.
That's not a spring, that's terrorist blowback. The protest movement in Saudi Arabia doesn't have anything to do with ISIS.
But ISIS like figures could take advantage.
Let's get it straight. We couldn't even tolerate Morsi - who was no ISIS - and won a legitimate victory.
We really don't care about democracy or freedom. Just whether they are on our side or not. Therefore, a murderer like Sisi gets an audience with the Queen. And, Theresa May [ and all before her ] grovels in front of the Saudi King.
The FDR view still holds sway:
'Look, he may be the son of a bitch but at least he's our son of a bitch.'
Disraeli took much the same view of the Ottomans, calling them a 'necessary evil'.
The truth is governments will always act in what they believe to be their best interests, which hopefully in a democracy will at least be the national interest too. And unless we have a one-world government with a clearly defined legal system that won't change.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
Sure, people should take appropriate care, but we should still blame thief rather than the victim.
Insurance companies disagree - the concept of negligence arises.
For myself, I think ramming home messages about basic precautions (e.g. keeping windows shut, not going about alone after dark) prevents people becoming victims in the first place, which is the more important thing.
That's why I've spent 24 hours tightening my e-security and changing passwords after an attempted hack. The fact that the DNC (or Clinton) failed to take such elementary precautions when they knew cyberattacks had been attempted is to my mind sheer folly.
That does not in any way excuse the criminals who carried it out, but it does raise entirely legitimate questions about the victims' judgment.
I like your insurance company analogy. If Clinton or the DNC had insurance against email hacking, there is no way it would pay out based on the known facts. The policy would probably demand that their IT security was approved by someone qualified, in the same way that they mandate door locks on nice houses and trackers on expensive cars.
Richard Grenell on New Years Eve, when no one is watching, the US govt confirms that the Russians didn't hack the power grid. https://t.co/FKanHisbrL
#Fakenews
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
I think my second comment answered your question.
For avoidance of doubt, the answer is 'no'. But I prefer preventive measures to stop the burglary rather than lamenting ex post facto.
Obama is getting a lot of stick at the moment for his aggressive stance on Russia just after the Russians seem to have brokered a peace deal in Syria.
Obama is probably afraid that something is going to happen, or not happen, in the next 19 days which is going to be for his legacy what Tehran was for Carter's.
Well the fact that the USA has been completely frozen out of the peace talks in Syria is an absolute humiliation for the west. Obama has been a complete and utter disaster for US foreign policy, probably worse than Dubya.
And by extension a humiliation for us, as we're flying along on US coat-tails. And we're now doubling down on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which won't be great news if there's a *real* Arab Spring.
It was the US' own ham-fisted support for (initiation of?) the Turkey coup that sent Erdogan into the arms of Russia. Their own meddling has buggered them. It would take a heart of stone etc.
Let's hope there isn't a real Arab spring in Saudi, because - taking recent history as an example - the great likelihood is that the Saudi royal family would be replaced by Islamists. Sitting on the world's biggest oil reserves, and possessing one of the world's biggest militaries.
That's not a spring, that's terrorist blowback. The protest movement in Saudi Arabia doesn't have anything to do with ISIS.
But ISIS like figures could take advantage.
Let's get it straight. We couldn't even tolerate Morsi - who was no ISIS - and won a legitimate victory.
We really don't care about democracy or freedom. Just whether they are on our side or not. Therefore, a murderer like Sisi gets an audience with the Queen. And, Theresa May [ and all before her ] grovels in front of the Saudi King.
The FDR view still holds sway:
'Look, he may be the son of a bitch but at least he's our son of a bitch.'
Disraeli took much the same view of the Ottomans, calling them a 'necessary evil'.
The truth is governments will always act in what they believe to be their best interests, which hopefully in a democracy will at least be the national interest too. And unless we have a one-world government with a clearly defined legal system that won't change.
And it was when Obama went against this principle and encouraged the Arab Spring that our stance in the the ME. A stupid person.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
Clearly you didn't read any of my comments. Oh well. That's sad, but typical of the way things have been going on this site recently.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
Clearly you didn't read any of my comments. Oh well. That's sad, but typical of the way things have been going on this site recently.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
Clearly you didn't read any of my comments. Oh well. That's sad, but typical of the way things have been going on this site recently.
I think you just proved my point.
I actually disproved it by giving Surbiton an honest answer based on facts - but by all means believe the opposite if you want to. It may please you and doesn't hurt me.
@MaxPB - In that case it was liberals who secured the collapse of communism and it has been liberals who have overseen the greatest leap in prosperity the world as a whole has ever seen.
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
Clearly you didn't read any of my comments. Oh well. That's sad, but typical of the way things have been going on this site recently.
I think you just proved my point.
I actually disproved it by giving Surbiton an honest answer based on facts - but by all means believe the opposite if you want to. It may please you and doesn't hurt me.
I wasn't disputing your honesty nor the facts. I was pointing out your propensity to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator
@MaxPB - and in a month Trump can let them back in. It's your game, your rules, your solutions. You've won. Now get to work.
It would actually be better if the Russians returned their current intelligence offices, better to have 35 of a known quantity (they would be useless), than 35 replacements who are cleanskins.
@glw - GOP leaders in the house & Senate have welcomed what Obama has done. Their only criticism is that he should have gone further sooner. John MCain is organising a Senate hearing on Russian hacking activity for later this week. Trump is increasingly isolated on this.
Trump is pushing for a major shift in bipartisan policy so naturally this will face resistance. Far from being 'increasingly isolated', his starting position of almost complete isolation is gaining more and more adherents. Just look at polling among Republicans about Putin.
What do you think will happen if/when McCain's committee produces reports blaming the Russians?
@MaxPB - In that case it was liberals who secured the collapse of communism and it has been liberals who have overseen the greatest leap in prosperity the world as a whole has ever seen.
Indeed, including those great liberals Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Shame the likes of Max are so derogatory toward them - I thought some conservatives quite admired them despite their obvious liberal tendencies.
@MaxPB - In that case it was liberals who secured the collapse of communism and it has been liberals who have overseen the greatest leap in prosperity the world as a whole has ever seen.
Many years ago there was a school of thought that cast Margaret Thatcher as a Gladstonian liberal who had absent-mindedly wandered into the wrong political tradition. A case was made based on their shared commitments to global free trade, hammering of the vested interests and interventionist foreign policies.
Of course it wasn't a terribly convincing case although it had some biggish names behind it. It is however interesting that it was even put forward - an attempt to cast Thatcher as being as Victorian as those values she kept banging on about, a snide comment on the intellectual stagnation of the Conservatives, or an attempt to co-opt her for 'liberal' values?
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
The question is: do you approve of such burglary ?
Leave it. They're not going to give you a honest answer. They are just going to smear the victim instead of blame the perpetrator. Your logical approach is a waste of time
Clearly you didn't read any of my comments. Oh well. That's sad, but typical of the way things have been going on this site recently.
I think you just proved my point.
I actually disproved it by giving Surbiton an honest answer based on facts - but by all means believe the opposite if you want to. It may please you and doesn't hurt me.
I wasn't disputing your honesty nor the facts. I was pointing out your propensity to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator
No, I blame the perpetrator. But I also think it is advisable to take steps to minimise the risk of becoming a victim, which the DNC clearly failed to do even though they were aware of the risks they were running. If somebody leaves their car unlocked and it gets stolen, while the crime is still the thief's the foolishness is that of the owner who didn't lock it, which is why the insurance company would not pay out.
It's probably the teacher in me that's saying all this. Telling teenagers not to do damn stupid things that put themselves at risk is a large part of my job (and as you can doubtless imagine, about as rewarding as hammering my head against a large brick wall).
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
Quite. Mrs Sandpit is Ukrainian, and the thinking over there at the moment appears to be that Russia have unfinished business in the Donbass, and might keep going up to the Dnipro if they get the wind in their sails. Their worry is that the EU and US might not be bothered to intervene.
One thing I always find a bit odd about the claim that Putin wanted to throw the POTUS election...if I was Putin and I wanted to bury Clinton surely you wouldn't hack (just) the DNC idiot you would go after the whole shitshow...Bill and Hiliary's emails, Clinton Foundation, anybody connected with the campaign, etc etc etc.
Its not like the Clinton's practice top notch internet security, so it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the elite Russian hackers to have a field day if they wanted.
The stuff that was leaked by wikileaks really weren't game changers, even if the media had really wanted to go big on them (which they didn't). Embarrassing, sure, but nothing that tied the Clinton''s to anything so scandalous that it would sink her.
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
Quite. Mrs Sandpit is Ukrainian, and the thinking over there at the moment appears to be that Russia have unfinished business in the Donbass, and might keep going up to the Dnipro if they get the wind in their sails. Their worry is that the EU and US might not be bothered to intervene.
I was in Donetsk for the Euros not that long ago... So sad and strange to think how different it is now. I remember I was struck by how many Ukrainians were supporting Russia then.
Glad I went though. I nearly visited Damascus in 2009 but put the visit off.
Richard Grenell on New Years Eve, when no one is watching, the US govt confirms that the Russians didn't hack the power grid. https://t.co/FKanHisbrL
#Fakenews
As was mentioned by Ms @PlatoSaid yesterday, a big problem with all the discussion about "Fake News" is that's its resulting in the "Real News" being exposed as just as inaccurate.
It's actually amazing to see in real time America fall into some new era of McCarthyism because some idiot at the DNC downloaded a hacktool from an email.
The craziest part is that Trump seems to have identified the military "big bad" better than Obama (Islamic terror) and the economic "big bad" better than Obama as well (China). Russia figures a bit here and there but overall it's not going to be Russians that attack America, or Russians that undercut American jobs.
Do the people who blame the DNC for the hacking take the same view of people burgled via open windows, tourists robbed for having their cameras on view or girls harrassed for wearing revealing clothes?
Speaking for myself Dr, I think people who leave windows open and unattended on ground floors are indeed taking a very unwise risk and it is hard to be as sympathetic as perhaps I should be when they get burgled. Most burglaries are opportunistic - an open door here, an unlocked car there, a handbag unattended anywhere. A little forethought can go a long way towards preventing such incidents.
Sure, people should take appropriate care, but we should still blame thief rather than the victim.
Insurance companies disagree - the concept of negligence arises.
For myself, I think ramming home messages about basic precautions (e.g. keeping windows shut, not going about alone after dark) prevents people becoming victims in the first place, which is the more important thing.
That's why I've spent 24 hours tightening my e-security and changing passwords after an attempted hack. The fact that the DNC (or Clinton) failed to take such elementary precautions when they knew cyberattacks had been attempted is to my mind sheer folly.
That does not in any way excuse the criminals who carried it out, but it does raise entirely legitimate questions about the victims' judgment.
If they had used two factor authentication it would have been avoided, phishing attempt or not.
Following on from previous thought...could it be that Putin actually wanted to throw some shit and say hey little lady we have your number for when you are POTUS, don't mess with us...?
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
Is he impressive in person?
My vote would be option 3... Always travels with bodyguards.
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
That's a good anecdote. What was he like as person, compared to others in similar positions whom you've met?
I'd guess that the answer to the bodyguard question is that they're always with him, probably following on from a specific incident or threat somewhere in the past and to placate an insurance company. They were probably as amused by their presence in that meeting as you were!
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
Is he impressive in person?
My vote would be option 3... Always travels with bodyguards.
Yes, he was. But I don't think you get to the top of an organisation like ExxonMobil (or IBM or Microsoft, etc.) without being highly presentable, an extremely skilled political operator and also having a good dash of luck.
It's interesting: Shell is a similarly massive oil & gas company (whom one prolific PBite works for), but BvB is a quiet, unassuming, and clearly extremely intelligent man. He's almost like a polar opposite (in terms of temperament) of Rex Tillerson.
Saw "Rogue One" for the second time today, at the IMAX near Waterloo station this time - preceded by a SEVEN-minute trailer for the upcoming "Dunkirk" film.
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
That's a good anecdote. What was he like as person, compared to others in similar positions whom you've met?
I'd guess that the answer to the bodyguard question is that they're always with him, probably following on from a specific incident or threat somewhere in the past and to placate an insurance company. They were probably as amused by their presence in that meeting as you were!
I think he was laser like focused on what the interests of ExxonMobil were. Sucking up to Putin in public, while being very hard nosed in private. allowed ExxonMobil access to oil and gas reserves that no one else got. (BP followed the opposite approach: antagonistic in public, craven in private.)
He will likely follow a similar approach with Russia in his new job. Very publicly friendly (which will play well with egos), but probably quite willing to use a big stick if they get out of line. I think he's a good choice for SoS.
Here's my favourite Rex Tillerson story. About four years ago, Exxon was doing an investor event in London. Alongside the presentations from various division heads, there were a series of small group meetings, and as a fund manager with substantial energy holdings, I got invited to one of these.
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
That's a good anecdote. What was he like as person, compared to others in similar positions whom you've met?
I'd guess that the answer to the bodyguard question is that they're always with him, probably following on from a specific incident or threat somewhere in the past and to placate an insurance company. They were probably as amused by their presence in that meeting as you were!
I think he was laser like focused on what the interests of ExxonMobil were. Sucking up to Putin in public, while being very hard nosed in private. allowed ExxonMobil access to oil and gas reserves that no one else got. (BP followed the opposite approach: antagonistic in public, craven in private.)
He will likely follow a similar approach with Russia in his new job. Very publicly friendly (which will play well with egos), but probably quite willing to use a big stick if they get out of line. I think he's a good choice for SoS.
That reply confirms my view of him, thanks. I'm on the 1/10 rather than the 10/1.
One thing I always find a bit odd about the claim that Putin wanted to throw the POTUS election...if I was Putin and I wanted to bury Clinton surely you wouldn't hack (just) the DNC idiot you would go after the whole shitshow...Bill and Hiliary's emails, Clinton Foundation, anybody connected with the campaign, etc etc etc.
Its not like the Clinton's practice top notch internet security, so it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the elite Russian hackers to have a field day if they wanted.
The stuff that was leaked by wikileaks really weren't game changers, even if the media had really wanted to go big on them (which they didn't). Embarrassing, sure, but nothing that tied the Clinton''s to anything so scandalous that it would sink her.
Comey's intervention [ and subsequent announcement that all was well ] was indeed a game-changer.
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
The problem is that Ukraine as it is today is an artificially created state. Think about the Russians in the eastern part of the country. What about their freedom ?
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
The problem is that Ukraine as it is today is an artificially created state. Think about the Russians in the eastern part of the country. What about their freedom ?
How many non artificially constructed states are there in the world?
@southamobserver is spot on Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
Yes... I would be very concerned if I lived in Eastern Europe right now... I wouldn't be surprised if in the face of bad domestic news Putin decides to 'liberate' another one of his neighbouring countries...
The problem is that Ukraine as it is today is an artificially created state. Think about the Russians in the eastern part of the country. What about their freedom ?
It is true that Ukraine is an 'artificial' country, but surely any changes to borders should be done on an agreeable and democratic basis rather than by military force?
One thing I always find a bit odd about the claim that Putin wanted to throw the POTUS election...if I was Putin and I wanted to bury Clinton surely you wouldn't hack (just) the DNC idiot you would go after the whole shitshow...Bill and Hiliary's emails, Clinton Foundation, anybody connected with the campaign, etc etc etc.
Its not like the Clinton's practice top notch internet security, so it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the elite Russian hackers to have a field day if they wanted.
The stuff that was leaked by wikileaks really weren't game changers, even if the media had really wanted to go big on them (which they didn't). Embarrassing, sure, but nothing that tied the Clinton''s to anything so scandalous that it would sink her.
It's a bit like what @MarqueeMark says about the Lib Dem in Torbay. During the 2015 GE he was telling anyone that would care to listen that those Tory activists being bussed around the country didn't have a clue about Torbay. Now he thinks they cost him the election.
I personally think the revelations were not great for the Democrats, but as you say, probably not a game changer (though given the small margin of victory for Trump, who knows). What ultimately did for Clinton is that by luck the Republicans ended up with a candidate who was able to appeal to voters where it mattered.
Interesting video. The trouble is some people will think it's a Brexit plan.
What's wrong with a plan to trade with various nations who all speak the same language, yet are diverse enough to all bring different skills and products to the market? The UK betrayed the Commonwealth in 1973 and 1975 in choosing the EU, we should really be making amends for that over the next decade.
RCS's anecdote below reminds me that some PBers have lifestyles and experiences that are a million miles removed from my own.
Must be just you that doesn't spend their days meeting VVVIPs...I thought that along with the funny handshake was the only way you didn't get the ban hammer from PB?
From the first day of jury selection, we all noticed another suited man always present in the courtroom. His presence was intriguing due to the ear piece in his ear. While grabbing lunch at Denton County Independent Hamburger on the square the 2nd day of the trial, we noticed this mysterious man dining with our fellow juror who declined the foreman spot. The intrigue grew and it was the talk of the jury – who were these men?
Finally, during a break in the jury room, one juror had the nerve to ask; “Who are you? And what do you do?”
Our fellow jury member was reading the paper again and pointed out an article with Exxon in the headlines.
“I work for them,” he said humbly. “There are a lot of people in this world who hate me for what I do, so they give me and my family guys like that to protect me.”
There may be historical reasons for differences in security levels between oil cos.
What's wrong with a plan to trade with various nations who all speak the same language, yet are diverse enough to all bring different skills and products to the market?
Leaving aside the fact that not all the Commonwealth speaks English, the answer to your question is "Because language is irrelevant". Trade policy should be biased towards maximising profit, not towards a language group. Taking language into account is about as relevant as height or beauty.
The UK betrayed the Commonwealth in 1973 and 1975 in choosing the EU, we should really be making amends for that over the next decade.
The UK betrayed nobody that it had not already betrayed by abandoning Imperial/Commonwealth preference and the Sterling area. The UK is not obliged to extend favorable terms to *anybody* without reciprocity.
You might also take into account Churchill's demand that Australia concentrate its armed forces in the European and neighbouring theaters of war during WWII, despite the fact that the Japanese were expanding southwards. This is why Menzies lost the Australian Premiership and Curtin gained it: because the latter was willing to tell Churchill to do one.
The problem is that Ukraine as it is today is an artificially created state.
As is Canada, Australia (ever wondered why they're so big?), India, Pakistan (old version), Israel (old borders), Syria, Jordan, and most of the Middle East. And those are just the ones I can think of without looking it up.
What's wrong with a plan to trade with various nations who all speak the same language, yet are diverse enough to all bring different skills and products to the market?
Leaving aside the fact that not all the Commonwealth speaks English, the answer to your question is "Because language is irrelevant". Trade policy should be biased towards maximising profit, not towards a language group. Taking language into account is about as relevant as height or beauty.
The UK betrayed the Commonwealth in 1973 and 1975 in choosing the EU, we should really be making amends for that over the next decade.
The UK betrayed nobody that it had not already betrayed by abandoning Imperial/Commonwealth preference and the Sterling area. The UK is not obliged to extend favorable terms to *anybody* without reciprocity.
You might also take into account Churchill's demand that Australia concentrate its armed forces in the European and neighbouring theaters of war during WWII, despite the fact that the Japanese were expanding southwards. This is why Menzies lost the Australian Premiership and Curtin gained it: because the latter was willing to tell Churchill to do one.
And as for Singapore...
That's not quite what I'm saying. There's a big world out there, a lot of which speaks our language, uses our law and has traditional ties to the UK and a willingness to trade. This makes for easy opportunities which we should take as soon as possible. Of course we are not obliged to help anyone, modern deals should be on mutually beneficial terms.
Singapore we screwed up big time, but that was in the 1940s and a lot has happened since then. Look at where they are now and say we shouldn't be encouraging free trade with them.
You might also take into account Churchill's demand that Australia concentrate its armed forces in the European and neighbouring theaters of war during WWII, despite the fact that the Japanese were expanding southwards. This is why Menzies lost the Australian Premiership and Curtin gained it: because the latter was willing to tell Churchill to do one.
And as for Singapore...
Singapore we screwed up big time, but that was in the 1940s and a lot has happened since then. Look at where they are now and say we shouldn't be encouraging free trade with them.
I was questioning your use of the word "betrayal" by highlighting cases where the UK unambiguously betrayed Australia and neighbours to the point of considerable loss of life.
The fundamental question remains whether Trump will hold to Article 5 in the NATO Treaty. If he does, Putin will be stymied in terms of territorial expansion though not in terms of political "involvement". Would, for example, a pro-Moscow Government in Slovakia or Bulgaria seek to leave NATO and sign up with Putin ?
I find it hard to believe Trump will walk in and tear up the NATO Treaty - I'm sure the Joint Chiefs and others will "advise" him accordingly - but it's clear the new administration will be sending a strong signal to other NATO members as to carrying their share of the burden.
Anyone watching the van Gerwen v van Barneveld match in the darts? They are playing ridiculously good darts.
Ooh, thanks for the reminder, just tuned in. Rather like golf and snooker, it's a very different sport the way the professionals play it - these guys throw 140s for fun, some of the outshots are completely bonkers, as is the way they just switch to T19 or T18 when cornered.
Anyone watching the van Gerwen v van Barneveld match in the darts? They are playing ridiculously good darts.
Ooh, thanks for the reminder, just tuned in. Rather like golf and snooker, it's a very different sport the way the professionals play it - these guys throw 140s for fun, some of the outshots are completely bonkers, as is the way they just switch to T19 or T18 when cornered.
When they switch to 19s is probably the most impressive thing. But these two are hitting the doubles at will.
Earlier in the tournament I thought it was odd just how short MVG's odds were. Now I know they were accurate!
I have no idea how MvG has won 23 of 24 tournaments this year....oh yes thats rights he is a f##king machine from the future who has come back to crush us puny humans, ala The Terminator (hat tip Jon Part).
Saw him live a couple of years ago, they play an outdoor tournament over here in May when the air is warm and still.
He's a complete machine, does 1-20 in order in 20 darts for exhibitions, throws 180s and nine dart legs at an astonishing rate when there's no pressure.
Barney's averaging over 110 in this match and is about to lose it! WTF?
Comments
To come back on thread, I think there is going to be a quite significant shift in US foreign policy in the next few years, as the country becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels. A lot of the realpolitik of the last few decades in places like Saudi and Russia will rapidly unwind the minute the USA no longer depend on them for oil. Another reason why an oil man (who presumably knows where a lot of bodies are buried) is an inspired choice as Secretary of State.
For myself, I think ramming home messages about basic precautions (e.g. keeping windows shut, not going about alone after dark) prevents people becoming victims in the first place, which is the more important thing.
That's why I've spent 24 hours tightening my e-security and changing passwords after an attempted hack. The fact that the DNC (or Clinton) failed to take such elementary precautions when they knew cyberattacks had been attempted is to my mind sheer folly.
That does not in any way excuse the criminals who carried it out, but it does raise entirely legitimate questions about the victims' judgment.
* I trust people on PB to believe him and blame the killed instead of the killers.
Nobody ever said I didn't trust Putin...
Let's get it straight. We couldn't even tolerate Morsi - who was no ISIS - and won a legitimate victory.
We really don't care about democracy or freedom. Just whether they are on our side or not. Therefore, a murderer like Sisi gets an audience with the Queen. And, Theresa May [ and all before her ] grovels in front of the Saudi King.
I would not even be surprised if a year from now, we start hearing that Russia is really an ally of the west. They are Caucasian, Christian and anti-Islamist. What's not to like ?
'Look, he may be the son of a bitch but at least he's our son of a bitch.'
Disraeli took much the same view of the Ottomans, calling them a 'necessary evil'.
The truth is governments will always act in what they believe to be their best interests, which hopefully in a democracy will at least be the national interest too. And unless we have a one-world government with a clearly defined legal system that won't change.
Putin is clever and deserves some respect, in the way any world leader does, but he is not our friend in any way. On one level it is welcome news that we may be working together against the greater Islamist threat, but this will ultimately come at the cost of bending to his will regarding the fate of eastern Europe: Shoddy puppet authoritarian governments, Russian meddling and influence over the EU, the UK isolated. Its a right mess.
For avoidance of doubt, the answer is 'no'. But I prefer preventive measures to stop the burglary rather than lamenting ex post facto.
Of course it wasn't a terribly convincing case although it had some biggish names behind it. It is however interesting that it was even put forward - an attempt to cast Thatcher as being as Victorian as those values she kept banging on about, a snide comment on the intellectual stagnation of the Conservatives, or an attempt to co-opt her for 'liberal' values?
It's probably the teacher in me that's saying all this. Telling teenagers not to do damn stupid things that put themselves at risk is a large part of my job (and as you can doubtless imagine, about as rewarding as hammering my head against a large brick wall).
So, I go into a small meeting room (I think it was at Claridges, but it I can't remember for sure), and there were about four or five other fund managers there. We wait, and chat for fiv minutes or so, and then Rex arrives with his Investor Relation Director. Following those two were three or four muscular men in dark suits and shades who stood by the walls and looked menacing.
Rex Tillerson brought his bodyguards to a meeting with a bunch of fund managers.
I'm still not sure why. Did he think one of us might be a potential assassin? Was he simply trying to discourage awkward questions and thought scary looking men would help? Or was it that he simply *always* travelled with protection?
Anyway. About three months ago I had a similar meeting with Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Shell. Who didn't bring any bodyguards.
Its not like the Clinton's practice top notch internet security, so it wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the elite Russian hackers to have a field day if they wanted.
The stuff that was leaked by wikileaks really weren't game changers, even if the media had really wanted to go big on them (which they didn't). Embarrassing, sure, but nothing that tied the Clinton''s to anything so scandalous that it would sink her.
Glad I went though. I nearly visited Damascus in 2009 but put the visit off.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/01/labour-split-immigration-keir-starmer-says-system-must-change/
My vote would be option 3... Always travels with bodyguards.
Ah, they got to it at the end
I'd guess that the answer to the bodyguard question is that they're always with him, probably following on from a specific incident or threat somewhere in the past and to placate an insurance company. They were probably as amused by their presence in that meeting as you were!
It's interesting: Shell is a similarly massive oil & gas company (whom one prolific PBite works for), but BvB is a quiet, unassuming, and clearly extremely intelligent man. He's almost like a polar opposite (in terms of temperament) of Rex Tillerson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox
He will likely follow a similar approach with Russia in his new job. Very publicly friendly (which will play well with egos), but probably quite willing to use a big stick if they get out of line. I think he's a good choice for SoS.
I personally think the revelations were not great for the Democrats, but as you say, probably not a game changer (though given the small margin of victory for Trump, who knows). What ultimately did for Clinton is that by luck the Republicans ended up with a candidate who was able to appeal to voters where it mattered.
The president of the European commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, spent years in his previous role as Luxembourg’s prime minister secretly blocking EU efforts to tackle tax avoidance by multinational corporations, leaked documents reveal.
Years’ worth of confidential German diplomatic cables provide a candid account of Luxembourg’s obstructive manoeuvres inside one of Brussels’ most secretive committees.
http://rodenfordenton.com/2016/12/that-time-i-spent-a-week-with-rex-tillerson/
From the first day of jury selection, we all noticed another suited man always present in the courtroom. His presence was intriguing due to the ear piece in his ear. While grabbing lunch at Denton County Independent Hamburger on the square the 2nd day of the trial, we noticed this mysterious man dining with our fellow juror who declined the foreman spot. The intrigue grew and it was the talk of the jury – who were these men?
Finally, during a break in the jury room, one juror had the nerve to ask; “Who are you? And what do you do?”
Our fellow jury member was reading the paper again and pointed out an article with Exxon in the headlines.
“I work for them,” he said humbly. “There are a lot of people in this world who hate me for what I do, so they give me and my family guys like that to protect me.”
There may be historical reasons for differences in security levels between oil cos.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/exxon-executive-is-murdered
You might also take into account Churchill's demand that Australia concentrate its armed forces in the European and neighbouring theaters of war during WWII, despite the fact that the Japanese were expanding southwards. This is why Menzies lost the Australian Premiership and Curtin gained it: because the latter was willing to tell Churchill to do one.
And as for Singapore...
The trick is to look for straight lines...
Singapore we screwed up big time, but that was in the 1940s and a lot has happened since then. Look at where they are now and say we shouldn't be encouraging free trade with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox
I find it hard to believe Trump will walk in and tear up the NATO Treaty - I'm sure the Joint Chiefs and others will "advise" him accordingly - but it's clear the new administration will be sending a strong signal to other NATO members as to carrying their share of the burden.
Interesting times...
Earlier in the tournament I thought it was odd just how short MVG's odds were. Now I know they were accurate!
He's a complete machine, does 1-20 in order in 20 darts for exhibitions, throws 180s and nine dart legs at an astonishing rate when there's no pressure.
Barney's averaging over 110 in this match and is about to lose it! WTF?
Edit: shit he just missed the D12 for a 9-darter.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pGNZ3GqYrVY