Trump 31: Parody of a Presidency

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

This is a good read on several pages.

I agree, it's a pretty good read, and quite revealing. Isn't it sad though, that at the time of that interview which took place before the elections in 2016, they all predicted (more or less vehemently) that he wouldn't be elected?

[Howl]

I realized a few minutes ago that I am VERY glad that Trump tweets. Can you imagine no twitter, with an entire White House squad committed to damage control?  We would have no idea what was going on or be able to understand the extent of his derangement.  Better we know on a daily basis, than have it hidden behind a veil of secrecy.  

[onekidanddone]

11 hours ago, Howl said:

I'm so excited!  Tomorrow is first day of a brand new Infrastructure Week!  What will happen? Indictments?  Bimbo eruptions? Firings? Men with a sudden and compelling need to spend more time with their families?  More Scott Pruitt skulduggery?  Michael Cohen spilling his guts to Mueller?  Will Trump decide to live and golf full time at Mar-a-Loco?  What will be revealed?

There have been so many "Infrastructure Weeks". I think it is just a code word for "More shit is about to hit the fan so LOOK shiny.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

6 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

There have been so many "Infrastructure Weeks". I think it is just a code word for "More shit is about to hit the fan so LOOK shiny.

Yes, that's it exactly.  With an administration characterized by buffoonery, every week from here on out is likely to be Infrastructure Week.    

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

The first thing you need to know about Infrastructure Week is that any week and every week could be Infrastructure Week. When it's always Infrastructure Week, it's never Infrastructure Week, but when you think about it, isn't the real Infrastructure Week just the friends we made along the way?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywqp8m/welcome-to-infrastructure-week-which-will-never-end

[AmazonGrace]

 "My phone is bigger than yours."

"Oui we don't have phones in France."

[Howl]

And yes!  It's Monday! There's already been a Bimbo Eruption!  Jessica Drake, a self identified porn star, sex worker and sex educator and friend of Stormy Daniels.  You'll be hearing more about this.  And more, and more.  Her lawyer is Gloria Allred.  Drake is on Ari Melber right now (MSNBC).  The good?  Clear explanation about why, regardless of one's occupation, no means no.  You don't grab women and kiss them without their consent.  #metoo

INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK!  It's a state of mind. 

[onekidanddone]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

And yes!  It's Monday! There's already been a Bimbo Eruption!  Jessica Drake, a self identified porn star, sex worker and sex educator and friend of Stormy Daniels.  You'll be hearing more about this.  And more, and more.  Her lawyer is Gloria Allred.  Drake is on Ari Melber right now (MSNBC).  The good?  Clear explanation about why, regardless of one's occupation, no means no.  You don't grab women and kiss them without their consent.  #metoo

INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK!  It's a state of mind. 

We should coin a new term: Bimbo Interruptus 

[GreyhoundFan]

An interesting op-ed: "Thank Trump, or You’ll Be Sorry"

Spoiler

President Trump recently tweeted, “The United States, under my administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our ‘Thank you, America?’ ”

President Trump has often criticized Americans for not being grateful enough. Now he has chastised the whole world as a thankless lot of humanity — a globe of ingrates.

Mr. Trump’s obsession with gratitude is a regular feature of his unscripted remarks and speeches. When people thank him, he likes them. But when slighted, he is quick to criticize unappreciative offenders. He has attacked Puerto Rican leaders as “politically motivated ingrates”; demanded public thanks from his cabinet and members of Congress; wants people to thank him for stock market gains; and excoriated a corporation as failing to thank him when he approved a project to its benefit.

Last December, a pro-Trump “super PAC” expressed its gratitude with a commercial, “Thank you, President Trump,” that expressed appreciation to him for, among other things, “letting us say ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

Gratitude is central to Mr. Trump’s politics. He demands it of his followers, his cabinet and, indeed, of all citizens. He deploys gratitude against his enemies and critics to embarrass and shame. Being grateful is not an option. It is a requirement.

Donald Trump has made “thank you” divisive.

Yet gratitude has always been political. Sometimes it is used toward good political ends (such as public celebrations of thanksgiving). More often, however, authoritarian leaders have used gratitude to control critics and consolidate power.

The misuse of gratitude in politics goes back a long way — ancient Rome mastered it. In that empire, structured as an economic and political pyramid, a few people at the top held most of the wealth and power. At the bottom, where most people barely survived, there was very little. What held this inherently unjust system together? There was, of course, a feared army. But there was also something else: a social structure based on a particular form of gratitude.

The emperor Caesar was believed to be “lord and savior.” He owned everything, the benefactor who distributed his gifts and favors (“gratia” in Latin) at will. Even if you were a slave with a single piece of bread to eat, that bread was considered a gift of the emperor’s.

Caesar’s gifts, however, were not free. They were transactional. When you received from Caesar, you were expected to return gratitude, your “gratia,” through tributes, tithes, taxes, loyalty and military service. Until you returned appropriate thanks, you were in Caesar’s debt. If you failed to fulfill your obligation, you were an “ingrate,” which was a political crime punishable by the seizure of your property, prison, exile or execution.

Rome’s power was built on benefactors and beneficiaries bound by reciprocal obligations of gratitude. It worked, but it was easily corrupted. Lower classes incurred huge debts of gratitude that could never be repaid, functionally enslaving them. Ancient philosophers urged benefactors to eschew corrupted gratia and instead give freely from a desire for the common good. Benevolent gratitude, they insisted, was a virtue. Sadly, it was also rare.

Western societies inherited Roman ideas of gratitude. Medieval rulers tried (and failed) to Christianize political gratitude, but Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith rejected quid pro quo. They argued that reciprocal gratitude was bad for politics, but also believed that benevolent gratitude was necessary for moral democracy. It was a nuanced and difficult position to achieve. The temptations of corrupted gratitude kept creeping back into Western politics.

Understanding this helps explain Donald Trump. He has always depicted himself as a benefactor: “I alone can fix it.” During the primaries, he boasted that he received no outside gifts or contributions, thus debts of gratitude would never control him. He criticized conventional forms of payback, promising to distribute social largess to the “right” people, rid the system of undeserving beneficiaries and restore upward mobility in a social pyramid. No more corporations, no more politicians. He would be the ultimate benefactor. He would make America great again from the top.

This helps explain why the Russia inquiry makes Mr. Trump angry. The suggestion that he benefited from anyone, much less a foreign government, undermines his self-image as unassailable benefactor. He never receives. He gives as he wills, and to whom he chooses. “Receivers,” like the poor, immigrants, women and persons of color, are considered weaker beings, consigned to the lower ranks of his social pyramid, and who, failing to reciprocate his paternalistic generosity, are chided for a lack of thanks.

There is, however, an alternative to the pyramid of gratitude: a table. One of the enduring images of American self-understanding is that of a Thanksgiving table, where people celebrate abundance, serve one another and make sure all are fed. People give with no expectation of return, and joy replaces obligation.

This vision of gratitude is truly virtuous, sustains the common good, ensures a circle of equality, and strengthens community. Instead of Mr. Trump’s gratitude-as-duty politics, what our country needs is a new vision of an American table of thanks.

 

[AmazonGrace]

And no Democrats

[CTRLZero]

11 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Rome’s power was built on benefactors and beneficiaries bound by reciprocal obligations of gratitude. It worked, but it was easily corrupted. Lower classes incurred huge debts of gratitude that could never be repaid, functionally enslaving them.

I wish Trump's base would understand this concept (I know, that'll never happen).  It is like they are happily propelling themselves (and others) towards functional enslavement, while Caesar Trump and his cronies pile up the wealth.  We are going to end up with huge debt, a less-educated populace, less clean environment, health care gone, etc., etc.  I'm not articulating this well, but I've always thought it terrifying/amusing that Trump's so-called Christian base elected a corrupt Caesar.

[AmazonGrace]

Where is the This is fine dog when you need him 

 

[Howl]

1 hour ago, CTRLZero said:

but I've always thought it terrifying/amusing that Trump's so-called Christian base elected a corrupt Caesar.

and sold their collective souls to the Devil in the bargain...

[AmazonGrace]

Macron visit highlights 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Emmanuel let him hold his hand 

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump keeps saying he’s innocent. So why does he keep sounding like he’s guilty?"

Spoiler

As concern grew inside his orbit that Michael Cohen might become a cooperating witness to federal investigators, President Trump issued a declaration about his longtime personal lawyer and fixer.

“Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble,” Trump tweeted over the weekend. He added: “Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that.”

By asserting that the government would not be able to “flip” Cohen, Trump invited a question: If the Russia probe is the “witch hunt” the president says it is — and if he is as innocent as he so often proclaims — what incriminating evidence would Cohen have on Trump that would give him leverage to flip?

It was only the latest instance of the president adopting a posture vis-a-vis his legal troubles that is both combative and defensive — and, perhaps unwittingly, seems to assume guilt.

Trump accused the FBI of going rogue by seizing Cohen’s records. He went to court to try to deny investigators access to his communications with Cohen. And he threatened to fire Justice Department officials, protesting overreach. Again and again, many legal experts say, the president has taken the steps of a subject who has something to hide, creating the appearance of a coverup even if there is no crime to cover up.

“I’ve seen criminal defendants do this before,” said Joyce White Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama. “When they speak about topics where other people protest their innocence, these folks have an assumption of guilt.”

“A normal person,” she added, “would say, ‘You can go ahead and search my lawyer’s office and I’ll give you access to everything’ because they know they didn’t do anything wrong. With Trump, there’s this consciousness that things should remain hidden.”

As Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) put it last month after Trump’s then-attorney, John Dowd, called on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to end his Russia investigation: “If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.”

Trump’s desire to shield details of his business dealings and personal life from Mueller and his team of investigators is in keeping with his general instincts to be opaque and impenetrable when it comes to his finances. He was the first major-party presidential nominee in more than a half century not to release copies of his tax returns before the election; a year and a half later, Trump still has not shared them with the public, citing an IRS audit but providing no evidence that the audit is real.

Trump’s aggression toward Mueller, FBI investigators and anyone else he considers a legal enemy is consistent with his determination over many years to cast himself as a victim of a system — “the swamp,” as he denounces it — run amok.

Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and veteran criminal defense attorney, said the president is taking the right approach.

“I tell my innocent clients, as well as my guilty clients, act as if somebody can incriminate you,” said Dershowitz, who defends Trump’s legal strategy on cable news shows and has informally discussed it with the president.

“I think any person who is the subject of an investigation should assume that the government may very well flip a witness — and may get him not only to sing, but to compose, that is to make up stories, to elaborate, to add,” he added. “Innocence is not enough.”

When President Bill Clinton was under investigation for lying about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, he and his advisers debated how aggressively to go after independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. They calculated that attacking Starr made Clinton look guilty, but that pulling punches legitimized a probe they felt was expanding far beyond its original mandate to look into the Whitewater real estate controversy.

Lanny Davis, one of Clinton’s legal advisers during this time, said he argued then in favor of attacking Starr. But he said Trump is making “a big mistake” by similarly going after Mueller.

“If, in fact, he has nothing to worry about on the issue of Russian collusion, which is the big enchilada, then anything he does or says that’s a criticism of Mueller is a huge mistake,” said Davis, arguing that with every outburst Trump risks adding a new exhibit to any obstruction of justice case. “Every time that he tweets about Michael Cohen and about flipping and about Mueller and FBI and all of the political rhetoric in his tweets, he is in fact extending the subject matter of the Mueller investigation.”

In his Saturday tweet, Trump argued that some witnesses who “flip” under pressure from the government do so by “lying or making up stories.” He offered no examples but still sowed doubt about the veracity of whatever evidence or accounts former national security adviser Michael Flynn and other cooperating witnesses may have provided to the special counsel.

Because of this “lying” caveat, some Trump allies said they rejected the suggestion that the president’s comment about Cohen’s possible “flip” suggests there is something incriminating needing to be covered up.

“His point was the government will squeeze people, and if they think they’re going to prison, they’ll lie to get out of going to prison,” said Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration. “I think the president was saying I didn’t do anything wrong and the only way people would think that is if Michael Cohen were to lie — and Michael Cohen won’t lie.”

Asked to explain Trump’s tweet, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Monday, “The president’s been clear that he hasn’t done anything wrong. I think we’ve stated that about a thousand times. Beyond that, I don’t have anything to add.”

There is a historical parallel to Trump’s venting. During the 1970s Watergate investigation, then-President Richard Nixon fumed about what he saw as a “witch hunt” and plotted with his advisers on how to thwart investigators, as revealed later in Oval Office audio recordings.

“What’s very peculiar for students of the Watergate era is to see Trump speaking in the same self-incriminating terms publicly. Nixon had enough self-control to only do it privately,” said Timothy Naftali, an historian at New York University and a former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Naftali added, “President Trump’s own rhetoric is not helping him exonerate himself. He shouldn’t have to care about whether someone ‘flips’ or not. If you’re innocent of crimes, you shouldn’t worry about what your lawyer tells law enforcement. Similarly, if Richard Nixon had not been worried about the truth, he would not have been suborning perjury.”

 

[formergothardite]

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

What’s very peculiar for students of the Watergate era is to see Trump speaking in the same self-incriminating terms publicly. Nixon had enough self-control to only do it privately,”

This really is Stupid Watergate. If the republicans actually had morals and a spine this whole thing would have ended a long time ago because Trump and Company are doing a really bad job of covering their tracks. 

[fraurosena]

Because of course he will... 

[GreyhoundFan]

"For better or worse, Ronny Jackson perfectly encapsulates Trump’s staffing system"

Spoiler

By now we should have developed a verb form for “Papadopoulos.” Few previously anonymous figures have been as important to the presidency of Donald Trump as onetime campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, and not only because he appears to have been the trigger for the Russian-collusion investigation that still haunts the president. There’s also the way in which he was added to the campaign in the first place.

In the weeks leading up to Trump’s March 2016 announcement about his foreign policy team, there had been a lot of speculation about who, if anyone, was guiding his approach to international affairs. Trump had already dispatched several of his Republican primary opponents, but that only made party leaders more wary about him as he continued to gather strength toward the nomination. So in a meeting with The Washington Post’s editorial board, Trump outlined the people who were assisting him, including Papadopoulos.

The Post wrote an article about Papadopoulos after he was named, with the (fully accurate) headline, “One of Trump’s foreign policy advisers is a 2009 college grad who lists Model UN as a credential.”

Two things led to the identification of Papadopoulos by Trump in that editorial board meeting, two things that have helped explain Trump’s candidacy and presidency and, specific to this moment, the quickly erupting dispute over Trump’s decision to name Navy Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician, to head the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The first is that Papadopoulos probably wouldn’t have been appointed to any position in any other major campaign. (That he came to Trump from the faltering campaign of Ben Carson supports that idea.) Papadopoulos had few significant credentials generally, much fewer credentials specific to the job to which he had been appointed. But Trump was hardly in a position to turn away assistance. From the outset, the Republican establishment kept Trump at a distance, assuming that his virulent anti-immigrant rhetoric would make him too toxic to be a viable candidate. The party had spent decades building a bench with experience in foreign-policy issues that covered a broad spectrum of approaches. But the people on that bench either worried about Trump as a candidate or worried about offending the establishment, so they stayed away. Trump was left with the Papadopouloses.

The second is that Trump didn’t really care. During his time in politics he has vacillated between worriedly wanting to do the things that candidates are supposed to do and ostentatiously ignoring them. His campaign put together policy papers and he had advisory teams because it was expected, not because he had fully articulated policy ideas or was relying on the input of others. He was more than happy to put forward Papadopoulos in that meeting with The Post, even calling him an “excellent guy.” Someone gave him a name, and he wanted to say it, so he said it. The end.

Two years after Trump unveiled that team, he fired David Shulkin, the former hospital administrator who now-President Trump had elevated to serve as secretary of Veterans Affairs. At one point, Trump hailed Shulkin’s efforts to improve care for veterans, but the secretary was also the subject of several embarrassing ethical questions. So Shulkin was out.

To replace him, Trump seized on someone who can be charitably described as “unexpected.” Jackson was well known to the political world not because of his history of leading massive government bureaucracies but for his lengthy news conference defending Trump’s physical and mental health earlier this year. Jackson is a physician, not an administrator. And while there’s an instinct (embodied by Trump) that experience is overrated, asking Jackson to lead VA is a bit like asking a random guy from the Bronx to run New York City. Maybe they could do a good job, and they certainly know the city! But … maybe they would not.

This is why we need a verb form of Papadopoulos: Trump Papadopoulos’d this. He likes Jackson, clearly. He clearly feels that Jackson can handle the job. That, to Trump, was the most important thing, not what external qualifications Jackson might have had. Or, for that matter, the political strength of Jackson’s candidacy for the position. On Monday night, The Post reported that serious questions about Jackson’s nomination had emerged, pushing back his nomination hearing. But Trump wanted to do it.

It’s not clear at this point whether he had other options. We’ve seen instances, as with his foreign-policy advisory team, in which Trump had a winnowed pool of potential candidates because many people weren’t interested in working for him — perhaps because he does things like pick people for positions seemingly on impulse.

The firing of Shulkin came about a week after Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd quit the president’s legal team. Trump has struggled to add new lawyers to that team. He has also publicly declared that “everybody wants to work in the White House,” but that apparently excludes many high-profile attorneys. It may also exclude a number of qualified individuals who might be happy to lead VA in another administration.

This pattern isn’t new with Jackson, but Jackson encapsulates it neatly. Trump appoints whom he wants to appoint from the pool of people willing to accept that appointment. That seems to mean that a lot of positions go unfilled, and it seems to result in a lot of turnover.

What’s really remarkable about Trump’s presidency is that embodying this pattern will likely be, at most, the second-most important thing for which Papadopoulos is known.

 

[fraurosena]

How true! 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump calls the Russia lawsuit ‘funny.’ He once sued to prove he wasn’t an orangutan."

Spoiler

“So funny,” President Trump remarked of the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against the Trump campaign, the Russian government and WikiLeaks.

Hilarious.

Almost as funny as when Trump sued Palm Beach County, Fla., because of the “malicious” jet noise above Mar-a-Lago.

Or when Trump sued Bill Maher after the comedian challenged Trump to prove he was not the spawn of an orangutan.

Or the time Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million because its architecture critic said Trump’s idea for the world’s tallest tower was silly.

Or when Trump sued neighbors of the Trump National Doral Miami for vandalizing palm trees, or when he sued the town of Palm Beach because it denied him an 80-foot flagpole. Trump sued New York, he sued New Jersey, he sued Scotland and he sued a former Miss Pennsylvania. He sued the Pequot Indians. He sued two business executives for using the name “Trump,” even though their surname was also Trump.

When he ran for president, he had been involved in some 4,000 lawsuits, a USA Today tally found, about 40 percent filed by Trump and his businesses. He brought the practice with him into politics, threatening to sue, or actually suing: Sen. Ted Cruz (“for not being a natural born citizen”), Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, the New York Times, The Post, Univision, the publisher of “Fire and Fury,” the Club for Growth, the Culinary Workers Union, the Republican Party, restaurants that pulled out of Trump International Hotel in Washington, the Associated Press, his former ghost­writer, NBC, ABC and women who accused him of sexual misconduct. Now Trump’s administration is suing California to stop its “sanctuary cities” policy, and to stop it from buying federal land that Trump wants to privatize.

Litigiousness is contagious. In the early months of his presidency, Trump was sued nearly three times as often as his three immediate predecessors — combined — at the same point, the Boston Globe found. States and cities have sued Trump over sanctuaries, the travel ban, “dreamers” and a citizenship question on the census. Two hundred congressional Democrats joined states in suing over Trump’s “emoluments.” Andrew McCabe, the former acting FBI director, is reportedly preparing to sue Trump for defamation.

Sometimes lawsuits are the only recourse in a broken political system. The parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich are suing Fox News for reporting conspiracy theories about his death. And parents of children killed at Sandy Hook sued conspiracy theorist Alex Jones last week for his claims that the shooting was a hoax. The Supreme Court is looking at various lawsuits over partisan redistricting. The president’s election-fraud panel fell apart after it was sued by one of its own members.

But others in the political realm are suing each other as casually as they issue news releases. It is no longer accurate to say, as John Adams once did, that we are a nation of laws and not of men. We are now a nation of lawsuits — thanks in part to the president, his lawyers and, yes, his lawyers’ lawyers.

One of Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, filed lawsuits against BuzzFeed and Fusion GPS over the Trump-Russia dossier. But he dropped those cases last week and tried to delay action in another lawsuit against him by adult-film actress Stormy Daniels — so Cohen could focus on his other legal troubles involving federal prosecutors probing possible financial crimes.

But three Russians continue to sue Fusion GPS over the dossier, and one of them is the father-in-law of the first person to be sentenced as part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s inquiry into Russia and the Trump administration. Among the former Trump advisers Mueller has charged is former campaign chairman Paul Manafort — who in turn sued Mueller and the Justice Department.

Trump himself has threatened to see the author of the Russia dossier in court. And last week he promised a countersuit against the DNC. But the docket is crowded, so Trump might want to try another venue — such as Panama, where the Trump Organization said it would sue a hotel that ditched the Trump name.

Though filing lawsuits to fight political battles is nothing new, Trump wouldn’t be wrong to think he is being hit with more than usual. His opponents have filed scores of suits on everything from transgender rights to presidential records.

But the president is in an awkward position to complain about excessive litigation, having taken legal action against an author who claimed Trump overstated his wealth, Deutsche Bank, Ivana Trump, Merv Griffin, a Trump University student and a former campaign aide — and having threatened legal action against Lawrence O’Donnell, Rosie O’Donnell, Harry Reid, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Tom Arnold, an anti-Trump T-shirt maker, the United States Golf Association, and the 92-year-old mother of a Scottish fisherman.

Now the DNC is using the same tactics Trump popularized. There’s a nonlegal term for this: rough justice.

 

[Audrey2]

@AmazonGrace, Melania just had the privilege on Saturday of sitting beside a real man. One who loves his wife deeply and treats women with respect (I haven't heard otherwise), unlike the boorish oaf who she chose to marry, apparently for the money and the lifestyle. After spending the time at Barbara Bush's funeral, being treated with respect as a human should be, Donnie Dummkopf's poor treatment is even more difficult for her.

I have very mixed feelings about Melania. On one hand, I think she chose to marry Trump for his money and power, with the trade-off being treated with kindness and respect. She's not the first person to make this trade-off. On the flip side, we've commented multiple times about Trump's apparent poor treatment of her. He won her, he got her, now what's the problem? (in his mind). I do feel at least a little badly for her, because she appears to be pretty miserable, and may not see a way out. The logical side of me says she made her own choices, but the emotional side feels empathy for one who chose poorly.

[AmazonGrace]

He has words, he has great words

Imagine Melania asking him a question. "Will you spend time with Barron this weekend?"

"No one knows what Obama's daughters are up to. I have a great relationship with Mitch McConnell. No one's done more for Mitch McConnell than I have. Great things are happening in regards to the tax cuts...."

[LaParisienne]

The world has stopped in France. News Channel are all talking about one thing : Macron & Trump. 

[Be aware, I'm currently doing my "memoire" (sorry, I don't know the translation for that word ... it's a research dossier I have to do to be able to get my diploma in June), this thing is slowly killing me and FJ is my break.  So, here is my rant. I may be mean or irrational and you might not understand. Sorry for this.]

I never imagined I would "laugh" so much just by looking at them and hearing them. The worst, for me, was "Iran is THE problem" yea, like Irak was, I guess ? And what's the result now ?  

Then, here we go with the bullshit "We, as new presidents, have the best relationship ever ?" "Macron is the greatest french president?"  Trump kissing Macron ?  Macron smiling like an idiot. Arg, I can't believe they're both presidents. 

If only extrem narcissim could kill, the world woul be a better place ..