• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I just watched Trump and Putin news conference

MrMike

MrMike

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,249
Location
Everywhere (Travel 80%)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
 
MrMike said:
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
Click to expand...

Interesting that a DieHard Conservative like you would grade him poorly. Do you give him a mulligan or do you hold his feet to the fire?
 
MrMike said:
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
Click to expand...

Talk about an understatement! The defense of the President’s remarks will be interesting......
 
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
treason high treason twenty-fifth amendment treason
 
When a reporter asked Putin about the existence of a compromising video on Trump he ducked and bobbed but wouldn't deny that one existed. Must have been a bit uncomfortable for our Trumpy.
 
MrMike said:
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was pretty bad.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Interesting that a DieHard Conservative like you would grade him poorly. Do you give him a mulligan or do you hold his feet to the fire?
Click to expand...

Step in the right direction. If more do that, I'll refrain from the I told ya so and other derogatory comments. At least, I won't make them to those who come around.

Except Turtle. I reserve the right to rub Trump in Turtle's face from now through eternity. j/k
 
MrMike said:
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter to me, because Trump is not exactly a speech master. The important stuff has been debated and discussed behind closed doors.
This was the last press meeting in a marathon 1-week-3-country negotiations trip (NATO - UK - Putin).

However, what I want to know is who are Mr. Bowder and Co. and which members of the US intelligence community helped them avoid paying taxes in Russia.


"... Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller -- we can let them into the country and they will be present at this questioning.

But in this case, there is a -- there's another condition. This kind of effort should be a mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate, and that they would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence service of the United States, whom we believe are -- who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia, and we have to -- to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up the Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States, and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that's the personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have a -- an interest of questioning them. We can all -- that -- that could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ce-with-russias-putin/?utm_term=.b1350f26b574
 
I feel like Danny Torrance in The Shining, only instead of running around screaming "REDRUM!"
I'm screaming "TREEZUM!!"

2xzE.gif
 
Barnacle said:
It doesn't matter to me, because Trump is not exactly a speech master. The important stuff has been debated and discussed behind closed doors.
This was the last press meeting in a marathon 1-week-3-country negotiations trip (NATO - UK - Putin).

However, what I want to know is who are Mr. Bowder and Co. and which members of the US intelligence community helped them avoid paying taxes in Russia.


"... Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller -- we can let them into the country and they will be present at this questioning.

But in this case, there is a -- there's another condition. This kind of effort should be a mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate, and that they would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence service of the United States, whom we believe are -- who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia, and we have to -- to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up the Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States, and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that's the personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have a -- an interest of questioning them. We can all -- that -- that could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ce-with-russias-putin/?utm_term=.b1350f26b574
Click to expand...

It's Browder. And, not knowing who he is says a lot about how incredibly ill-informed you are on matters pertaining to Russian corruption and the Magnitsky Act.
 
MrMike said:
I think Trump did awful on this one. That's of course just my opinion, but to me, he mangled it and the entire thing came off poorly.
Click to expand...

No big deal. A little light treason, that’s all.

I just wonder what classified information Trump delivered to him in their two hour private talk?

And what Swiss bank account will be accepting the funds?
 
calamity said:
It's Browder. And, not knowing who he is says a lot about how incredibly ill-informed you are on matters pertaining to Russian corruption and the Magnitsky Act.
Click to expand...

So sorry. I was too busy in the last 20 years following the Clinton Foundation corruption ... :lol:
 
Rexedgar said:
Don’t hold back, Jack!
Click to expand...

I try to draw some amusement from all the Dems who ridiculed Mitt Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat. Now they're all in a Joe McCarthy sound-alike contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom