And the other question is WHY? WHHHHHHY? WHAT NATIONAL INTEREST DOES ANY OF THIS SERVE?

Cool. But he isn't pursuing foreign policy nor does he have any influence over it, so why are people tying themselves in knots over what he would or wouldn't say to a world leader he will never meet or have any business with?

MEAT.

If Liberace were the dictator of Argentina.

"In a VAN down by the river!"

I fully expected you to say:

He felt a tap on his shoulder, and not a light one. More like a Koko the gorilla might tap a visitor's shoulder to the zoo when he gets a little close to the bananas.

"What's up?"

"Gotta go." Thumb jerked over shoulder.

"Now?"

"'Fraid so"

"But"

*silly Thomas Pynchon limerick*

I'm with you that there's some Singapore-pilledness going on , but I'm just astonished that someone can't see a) how Singapore's approach is fundamentally misaligned with American law and values and b) not see how easily systems like that are abused, particularly in light of our own history!

Your response drew me to the thread, but man, I was not prepared for THAT take (you know the one I'm talking about).

Dude, *what?*

"Greeted as liberators," my sources are saying.

Agreed. I too am committed to only doing things that work out well and not things that do not work out well.

He and Roger Waters can go on a tour of their backyards and stay there until they repent or die.

Perhaps the writer should ask himself whether JFK wanted The Bay of Pigs to turn out that way, and, if the answer is "no," why the President wanting something to happen one way wasn't enough to make it so.

What the fuck does the mayor of NYC have to do with any of this?