Jump to content

Helsinki Summit


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Ok I listened to the press conference when it happened. I didnt think much of it tbh, nothing shocking other than Trump not choosing the obvious choice, even if just to placate the media, of choosing the US intel's side.  What I took from that was that he was most likely trying to keep things cordial with Putin. So I go home for lunch and turn on the news and I see Schumer acting like Trump just handed us over to the Russians and the end of the world was coming, and I wonder if I even watched the same thing he did?

Really?  I would've been shocked if Trump publicly agreed with the US intelligence agencies in front of Putin because his negotiation style is to use flattery no matter how despicable the person across the table from him is in order to get something. That's his style and it's confusing to a lot of people (even to some of his fellow Republicans in Congress who I despised long before Trump entered the political realm).

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

Really?  I would've been shocked if Trump publicly agreed with the US intelligence agencies in front of Putin because his negotiation style is to use flattery no matter how despicable the person across the table from him is in order to get something. That's his style and it's confusing to a lot of people (even to some of his fellow Republicans in Congress who I despised long before Trump entered the political realm).

 

I gotta say you seem to have that part of him nailed down, and i think that is what is causing the uproar, he isnt acting like the past presidents, which is what a lot of people liked/wanted

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Really?  I would've been shocked if Trump publicly agreed with the US intelligence agencies in front of Putin because his negotiation style is to use flattery no matter how despicable the person across the table from him is in order to get something. That's his style and it's confusing to a lot of people (even to some of his fellow Republicans in Congress who I despised long before Trump entered the political realm).

 

he might not agree because the US Int reports are nothing but a road apple

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nanker obviously believes the "official" 911 version.

 

Clearly, Nanker can show us photos of

 

1. bin Laden in Saudi Arabia

2. the bin Laden family

 

 

but Nanker can't do that, because bin Laden was never in Saudi, and the "bin Laden family" only exists in Michael Moore's incredibly dishonest "mind."

 

That bin Laden is/was Col Osman....

 

http://www.jar2.com/2/Iraq/Osama_Bin_Laden.html

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/osama-bin-laden-tim-osman-cia-ajiesh-tk

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html

 

has had claims all along, but no photos.  The 911 Traitors emptied all US records of Col Osman....

 

but the KGB.... oooops..... thank you VLAD PUTIN for digging out the KGB archives and busting JEWISH Col Osman as bin Laden

 

 

Image result for bin laden ziggy

Image result for bin laden ziggy
 
 
Image result for osama bin laden ziggy
 
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Trump's sanctions against Russia don't match that theory.

 

not necessarily a mutually exclusive course of action, or binding

 

he doesn't have to agree with Intel to do what he wants, ESPECIALLY The Donald...

 

 

 

and the sanctions are completely toothless and weak, harsh by Carter/Obama standards

 

 

on second thought, even on the most corrupt set of company books with the whole bank account being absconded, about 80% of the ledger entries were legit... so Intel Reports probably had a lot of good in them....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Truth. 

Your man tucked his dick between his legs and had a all day **** c u c k session....what does that make you?

Edited by baskin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

not necessarily a mutually exclusive course of action, or binding

 

he doesn't have to agree with Intel to do what he wants, ESPECIALLY The Donald...

 

and the sanctions are completely toothless and weak, harsh by Carter/Obama standards

 

on second thought, even on the most corrupt set of company books with the whole bank account being absconded, about 80% of the ledger entries were legit... so Intel Reports probably had a lot of good in them....

 

Doc hit on the key fracture point between the "reality" of his opponents and Trump's own "reality". Namely, he's always said and been honest that Russians meddled in the election (and tried to do more than they accomplished). He's drawn the line (without stating the line clearly) that "hacking the DNC" is not settled - which even the USIC agrees with him on. Only two agencies agreed fully with the ICA of January 2016. The NSA was 50% confidence - which was raised to 100% after the DNC hack was removed from the equation. 

 

Hacking the DNC was a key event for the counter narrative (that Trump and Russia were working together to trip the election) started by the DNC and never Trumpers. Trump knows this, and thus when it's brought up he's defensive because he takes the questions as questioning his legitimacy (which, based on who's asking, usually is the subtext). 

 

That's how Trump can trust the IC and still say "we're all to blame". You have to get into the weeds to see the difference, and most don't have the time or patience to do so. Trump could make it easier by being a more traditional (and less clumsy) communicator - but that's not who he is, nor who he'll ever be. 

 

That doesn't make him a traitor though. 

 

2 minutes ago, baskin said:

Your man tucked his dick between his legs and had a all day **** c u c k session....what does that make you?

 

Who's my man? 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

********************************

Programming note (and I'll post video when I get it):

 

Putin interview on Fox now with Mike Wallace. 

Trump interview with Tucker Carlson 9pm EST. 

 

Putin already speculated about stopping a nuclear false flag attack - on the first question :lol:

(Wallace made Putin uncomfortable - he almost stopped speaking Russian for a moment and addressed him in English)

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Oh ?

lol, how few up votes this loser has after posting over 15000 x...

no one likes you, you probably up voted yourself every time...

seem like there is always one lonely loud angry reject screaming their hatred

in every online setting. Its must be hard holding onto that much hatred.

heart pills much?

 

Edited by Albwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Cohen's having a tough week. And it's only Monday. 

 

My SECOND "You're an idiot" tweet ever.

2 minutes ago, Buftex said:

Image may contain: 2 people, text

 

Hyperbole, done properly, shouldn't be this stupid.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

********************************

Programming note (and I'll post video when I get it):

 

Putin interview on Fox now with Mike Wallace. 

Trump interview with Tucker Carlson 9pm EST. 

 

Putin already speculated about stopping a nuclear false flag attack - on the first question :lol:

(Wallace made Putin uncomfortable - he almost stopped speaking Russian for a moment and addressed him in English)

 

Chris Wallace interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin (33:36)

In an exclusive, wide-ranging interview with 'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace, Putin dismisses claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election, says Russia would react negatively to the expansion of NATO, blames terrorists for civilian casualties in Syria.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...