snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 21 July 2017, 08:30 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,029
Default

My understanding (which is admittedly not an expert one) is that a conspiracy charge requires, first, an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime; and secondly, at least one "overt" act. However, the act need not itself be criminal; an example I've heard is that, if you've planned with a partner to rob a bank, buying the gas to fuel the getaway car could be construed as sufficient.

So, yes, agreeing to the meeting might not be enough, but attending the meeting might be.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01 August 2017, 09:14 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Roll eyes

The lies just get less and less believable every day. Is there any fool on this planet other than Huckabee-Sanders who thinks that man is remotely capable of "weighing in" or "offering suggestions"?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02 August 2017, 02:06 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 25,951
Default

I don't know, I thought this was a pretty plausible summary:

Quote:
The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had.
(She said "weighed in" a few times... I found a video to make sure this wasn't out of context.)

To me, "weighed in based on limited information" means "tried to throw his weight around without knowing what he was talking about". Maybe those words carry different connotations in the States, but it seemed to me that she was perhaps being more accurate than she'd meant to...

(eta) I suppose the contentious part is the extent to which his information was limited. But I don't have any problem with the idea that he "weighed in". Again, to me, that phrase doesn't carry a positive connotation.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04 August 2017, 09:01 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,023
Default The Russia investigation is getting serious — and President Trump is feeling the heat

When President Trump is feeling put-upon, he retreats to his happy place: standing before a crowd of enthusiastic supporters who will cheer wildly for him and allow him to feel as though it’s still the 2016 campaign. So last night he went to West Virginia so that he could feel the love and be able to dismiss the widening and deepening investigation as nothing more than a witch hunt. But if it’s a witch hunt, there are an awful lot of people around the president who just happen to be wearing pointy hats.

(snip)

At that West Virginia rally last night, Trump told his supporters, “The Russia story is a total fabrication. It’s just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics.” He then said, “What the prosecutors should be looking at are Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails,” at which the crowd erupted in a positively orgasmic cheer that then turned into chants of “Lock her up!” It was as if they were transported back a year, when they could feel the adrenaline rush of pure hatred flowing through them and everything was simple. But after it was over, the president flew back to Washington, where nothing is simple and the noose is tightening around him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.28dbd9a4c28a

(highlighting mine) I'm actually beginning to have some hope that Trump isn't going to win this one.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04 August 2017, 09:26 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
To me, "weighed in based on limited information" means "tried to throw his weight around without knowing what he was talking about". Maybe those words carry different connotations in the States, but it seemed to me that she was perhaps being more accurate than she'd meant to...

(eta) I suppose the contentious part is the extent to which his information was limited. But I don't have any problem with the idea that he "weighed in". Again, to me, that phrase doesn't carry a positive connotation.
I've never considered "weighed in" to be a negative, so maybe it does have a different meaning here. I would say that we are all weighing in on issues when we come here to post, sometimes with limited information. Of course, it could be that I have the meaning wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07 August 2017, 02:14 PM
katdixo katdixo is offline
 
Join Date: 12 November 2002
Location: Maryland suburb of Washington, DC
Posts: 429
Default

I also feel that "weigh in" does not have a negative connotation in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07 August 2017, 02:56 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,363
Icon605

If I might weigh in on this, I'd just like to say that I agree. To "weigh in" on a topic of conversation, IMHO, means to do little more than throw in one's "two cents."
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07 August 2017, 03:15 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,023
Default

Which is why that term was used, and used and used. In an attempt to minimize what Trump Sr actually did. As Ganzfeld pointed out does anyone really believe Trump Sr is capable of offering an observation or two but basically sitting back and letting events take their course? I certainly don't.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07 August 2017, 06:51 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 25,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
If I might weigh in on this, I'd just like to say that I agree. To "weigh in" on a topic of conversation, IMHO, means to do little more than throw in one's "two cents."
In this context, I don't think "threw in his two cents" would have a positive connotation either...!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07 August 2017, 07:00 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

I'm pretty sure the root problem here is with the subject of the sentences, not the verbs.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07 August 2017, 09:43 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 25,951
Default

I disagree - the subject is obviously a problem, but to me those verbs don't imply anything positive either. They imply either throwaway remarks, or an attempt to "throw your weight", based on too little information, neither of which is a positive thing. Certainly not in this context of the president doing that in this situation.

They aren't inherently negative phrases either, but ganzfeld seemed to be saying that by using the phrase "weighing in", Sarah Huckabee Sanders was trying to put a positive spin on something, whereas to me, that phrase in this context has negative connotations. Obviously the situation is negative too.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08 August 2017, 04:11 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
My understanding (which is admittedly not an expert one) is that a conspiracy charge requires, first, an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime; and secondly, at least one "overt" act. However, the act need not itself be criminal; an example I've heard is that, if you've planned with a partner to rob a bank, buying the gas to fuel the getaway car could be construed as sufficient.

So, yes, agreeing to the meeting might not be enough, but attending the meeting might be.
Wouldn't attending the meeting be roughly equivalent to driving to the bank you are planning to rob?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08 August 2017, 04:43 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default

I don't think "weigh in" is particularly negative in nuance but the problem is it's way too neutral. It speaks to the conundrum of pretending to be in complete control while at the same time denying any complicit knowledge. Consciously or (it seems more) subconsciously they chose a "weight" metaphor to make it seem as if his opinion has weight and matters to his staff but it's casually "weighed in, based on the limited information" because he can't be seen as paying attention to something they keep insisting isn't important.

I don't want to see them "lose" this; I just want the country and constitution to come out in one piece. It's way beyond politics now and into the survival of a sovereign country willing to defend itself against entities way more dangerous to that survival than any terror group ever was. I don't think the people who were involved in this realized that danger at all. They were naive and ignorant of the law and the reality. It's obvious they were in way over their head and got played by people who've been playing this game for many decades. (This is how most cons work. The people being conned end up having to do some of their own conning or misdemeanors and realize only after they're in too deep themselves to go to the police that they've been had - if they realize it at all. It takes some introspection, which is in short supply.) That they are also victims is no excuse for their behavior but I think we have to somehow get beyond all that to begin to boil down what actually happened. Maybe even pardons wouldn't be a bad thing they helped get to truth. I'm afraid they would just be used to allow more pathetic propaganda instead, though. It looks like most of the people involved will do just about anything to save themselves so in the end the only thing that will really work is indictments.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08 August 2017, 11:49 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

I've been meaning to post this interview with Rep. John Duncan (R-TN), if only to confirm that I did not imagine this exchange:

Quote:
DUNCAN: I don't have real strong feelings about Putin either for or against him. I've read quite a bit about him, but I've read some things that don't sound particularly good. But I've never met the man. And I also have read, for instance, columns by Pat Buchanan that are very favorable towards Putin. And so...

SIMON: Yeah.

DUNCAN: ...You know, I guess he's like most of us. He has some good and some bad.


ETA: Duncan does go on to say that of course he doesn't approve of murdering journalists (if Putin did such a thing).
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08 August 2017, 12:20 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
No

Yet people are claiming, because of sanctions, this whole thing backfired on them. Who knows in the long run but for now it looks like it had exactly the desired effect: Hook, line, and sinker. Overnight the GOP went from something like 60 or 70 percent negative toward Russia to something like 30 percent. (I'm not commenting here on whether or not that's good in the end. That's a different question.) Sanctions just offered some plausible deniability, nothing more. Not really negative because it allowed them a huge chance to try drop it. I have no doubt at all that's the next move. This is just the first step: Make it all about Putin and Trump, not about the actual threat to borders, such as no immigrant ever, then drop it.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08 August 2017, 12:27 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,363
No

Whatever happened to the Crimea, anyways?

Rhetorical question.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08 August 2017, 03:43 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

At least the sanctions against Russia will have some affect on the people taht could actually affect things.

Compare with the sanctions on N.Korea which will have zero affect on Kim Jong-un. (Huge affects on the population but that doesn't really matter in terms of changing N Korea's behavior until it reaches the point of a revolution.)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08 August 2017, 04:23 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,363
No

I'm more worried about unchecked Russian aggression (of the sort we've seen for the last decade) than I am North Korean saber rattling (of the sort we've seen since 1953). Push comes to shove, we can win a full scale war against North Korea. It'd be a rough day for South Korea, but... Well, I don't really know how to finish that remark. Needless to say, with Russia an open conflict would be worse.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08 August 2017, 05:01 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
I'm more worried about unchecked Russian aggression (of the sort we've seen for the last decade) than I am North Korean saber rattling (of the sort we've seen since 1953). Push comes to shove, we can win a full scale war against North Korea. It'd be a rough day for South Korea, but... Well, I don't really know how to finish that remark. Needless to say, with Russia an open conflict would be worse.
True. But my point was we have some leverage with Russia (including freezing the bank accounts of Russian oligarchs, competing with them on the world energy market, etc.) but we have zero leverage with N. Korea. There is absolutely nothing (short of a military action) that we can do to that would have any affect on the N. Korea president.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11 August 2017, 12:47 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default Oh, Wait. Maybe It Was Collusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/o...usion-cia.html

We like to think of ourselves as fair-minded and knowledgeable, having between us many years of experience with the C.I.A. dealing with Russian intelligence services. It is our view not only that the Russian government was running some sort of intelligence operation involving the Trump campaign, but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump's Medical Report Is More Insane Than His Campaign, Somehow Horse Chestnut The Doctor Is In 36 03 May 2018 09:40 PM
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and amb Darth Credence Soapbox Derby 60 18 May 2017 03:28 AM
Interior Department told to stop tweeting after unflattering retweets about Trump TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 24 25 January 2017 11:31 AM
Trump slammed Clinton for email use, but he's running Windows 2003 TallGeekyGirl Techno-Babble 1 18 October 2016 04:36 PM
Here's a New Terrifying Development Out of the Donald Trump Campaign TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 3 11 October 2016 04:35 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.