That’s his dilemma.
And it’s why I was surprised to see them say it.
1 Like
So, I’m going to assume we’ve all thought of this.
Because of the closed meeting, and the complete untrustworthness of Trump (and his idiocy in having a closed meeting with his boss), Putin can now say that they agreed to…anything he wants, actually.
And Trump can do little more than sit there and look stupid while his boss changes the deal (the bigliest, classiest deal ever) at will.
3 Likes
Remember “Iran-contra”?
A smarter POTUS would have recognized the proposal as absurd.
4 Likes
This really stupid do-si-do riled me up enough to berate my congress representative and one of the senators – (The other is beyond hopeless) to ask them to please stop the idiocy.
How much lower can it get?
3 Likes
yes
1 Like
“It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it”
Sincerity?
You’ve got to be kidding me.
We seem to be in some weird parallel universe.
1 Like
You can bet that when Putin figures it out, if he hasn’t already, Trump is going to wish he was dead. Putin will take it out on the orange baffoon and it will be epic.
3 Likes
Good short podcast about how Putin and Trump both messed up on Helsinki.
1 Like
I’m starting to think that Trump is a zen buddhist master. Every word he says can be taken either literally or seriously. Since the two are mutually exclusive, every sentence he makes with N words has 2^N possible interpretations, assuming all interpretations are equally likely. So the probability that he makes an N-word completely true sentence is 1/2^N.
For example, a simple 5-word completely true Trump sentence occurs with a frequency of 1 in 32, or roughly 3% of the time. The longer the sentence, the smaller it is completely true, tending to a probability of zero as sentence length tends to infinity.
This is why no lawyer would advise Trump to speak with Mueller under oath.
I think you did. Both Schumer and Pelosi were quick to ask what hold Putin has over Trump. This is the key and imperative question of the historical moment. And just today the entire Senate repudiated this idea. Maybe you require more histrionics, and maybe you require that they be especially brought to your attention. But I do recall the Democrats speaking up. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
1 Like
I am aware of this. I don’t believe this is a sufficient response. I believe our survival is at stake.
What sort of response would better help our survival? Keep in mind that the Democrats are a political unit who want to find the tactics that will help them meet their goals, among which I assume “our survival” is included. What would the sufficiency you want look like? And if the Democrats are insufficient responders, do you have a different and better home team we can root for? Or are you locked into chronic, habitual Democrat-bashing? Don’t really know you so forgive the sarcasm but I don’t see how your attitude helps much, frankly.
Madness.
1 Like
You know what…first off, I hope Trump will be in jail at that point. But secondly, my initial reaction is nobody fucks with American presidents except Americans. This is our orange buffoon to take down, not Putin’s.
1 Like
Right. Hold a referendum on Crimea, as if the average American could give 1/100th of a fuck, since probably 75% of the public couldn’t reliably point to their own state on a map, let alone where Crimea is. And @meri, I get your point: We’ll never know what transpired in that meeting, so Putin could say something like, “Don’t forget, Donald, you promised me a free year at Trump Tower Jakarta,” or what-the-fuck-ever.
1 Like
Or, you know, “President Trump, he promise me Poland. America will not help you. Welcome back into the New Soviet Union.”
1 Like
What Putin says he suggested was a referendum to be held in Russia, including Crimea …
D’oh!
1 Like
Ah. My mistake. Still has a pretty predictable result, no?
1 Like