Jump to content
itsybitsy itsybitsy (Member)

President Trump Plans Meeting to Denuclearize N. Korea

Politics   (2,061 Views 37 Comments)
3,818 Visitors; 321 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 2 of President Trump Plans Meeting to Denuclearize N. Korea. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Maybe you could clarity what you mean by "willfully ignorant" since this proposed meeting has been extensively covered.

It's not covered in the same fawning way that Breitbart covers it, but covered.

A an in-person meeting with the President of the United States has been near the top of Kim Jong-Un's wish list, just like his father before him. What's been expected in return for that concession is to have a deal on the table for full denuclearization. In just giving away the most desired carrot we have to offer, maybe it's part of some brilliant plan he has that will be successful in full denuclearization, in which case he should get credit where credit is due. It's also possible that he just doesn't have a full understanding of the concepts involved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it civil to laugh at conservative pundits who praise Trump for his plan to meet with Kim after they panned Obama for speculating about a Kim meeting before his election?

Oh good, because I'm laughing at the narrow perspective and short memory of those political agitators and those who are titillated by their nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the results from past policy of not meeting with NK. They have developed and successfully exploded nuclear weapons. They have developed a missile program to deliver nuclear bombs which they are still refining and testing. I don't think a nuclear NK is in our best interest.

I am encouraged that SK is part of the talks. They have the most to lose and they know best how Koreans negotiate. Don't forget, at least twice in the past NK has promised not to seek nuclear weapons as part of deals the US made with them. I'm sure they justify breaking those agreements somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the results from past policy of not meeting with NK. They have developed and successfully exploded nuclear weapons. They have developed a missile program to deliver nuclear bombs which they are still refining and testing. I don't think a nuclear NK is in our best interest.

I am encouraged that SK is part of the talks. They have the most to lose and they know best how Koreans negotiate. Don't forget, at least twice in the past NK has promised not to seek nuclear weapons as part of deals the US made with them. I'm sure they justify breaking those agreements somehow.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If I've been eating healthier and lost little to no pounds, would it be logical for me to assume that then doing the opposite will cause me to lose a bunch of weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I follow that logic. If I've been eating healthier and lost little to no pounds, would it be logical for me to assume that then doing the opposite will cause me to lose a bunch of weight?

A better analogy is you've been eating a certain diet. Over the years you've gained weight and developed significant comorbidities. Would it make sense to continue the same diet or to make a change?

We don't know what negotiations with NK will do but it is obvious that our past strategy has not been a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
Is it civil to laugh at conservative pundits who praise Trump for his plan to meet with Kim after they panned Obama for speculating about a Kim meeting before his election?

Oh good, because I'm laughing at the narrow perspective and short memory of those political agitators and those who are titillated by their nonsense.

When did who "pan" Obama? Obama wanted to sign in humanitarian deals with NK, if he were worried about denuclearization, he wouldn't have pressed that issue. NK is a dictatorship, you either can deal with that and denuclearize or call the deal off because Kim is mean. The answer should be clear. Ensure the safety of American's first. Arn't you falling for your own "whataboutism" bull ****? We aren't talking about what Obama did or, in this case, didn't do, we are talking about what Trump is doing and will do - meet with North Korea to denuclearize.

If you're laughing at me since I am apparently "titillated by their nonsense", for one you might have a perverted mind, for two, you are attacking for political beliefs rather than the issue at hand, and three talks of Trump meeting NK on denuclearization is not nonsense, it most certainly does make sense that this is reported on as it is an issue that has extended for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I follow that logic. If I've been eating healthier and lost little to no pounds, would it be logical for me to assume that then doing the opposite will cause me to lose a bunch of weight?

Or work harder? Sanctions that could have been put in place, including forcing China's hand. Being active in the issue even when you feel you are at a standstill, not giving up after failure. You know, the usual things that happen in the past when you see a person succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did who "pan" Obama? Obama wanted to sign in humanitarian deals with NK, if he were worried about denuclearization, he wouldn't have pressed that issue. NK is a dictatorship, you either can deal with that and denuclearize or call the deal off because Kim is mean. The answer should be clear. Ensure the safety of American's first. Arn't you falling for your own "whataboutism" bull ****? We aren't talking about what Obama did or, in this case, didn't do, we are talking about what Trump is doing and will do - meet with North Korea to denuclearize.

If you're laughing at me since I am apparently "titillated by their nonsense", for one you might have a perverted mind, for two, you are attacking for political beliefs rather than the issue at hand, and three talks of Trump meeting NK on denuclearization is not nonsense, it most certainly does make sense that this is reported on as it is an issue that has extended for decades.

Do you need someone to explain "whataboutism" to you? Are you under an impression that pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of FOX news in covering two men very differently for saying similar things is whataboutism? Bwahahaha

Why am I not surprised that you are asking who at Fox panned Obama's suggestion that he would meet with our enemies? Are you curious? Are you wondering how obvious the hypocrisy is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A better analogy is you've been eating a certain diet. Over the years you've gained weight and developed significant comorbidities. Would it make sense to continue the same diet or to make a change?

We don't know what negotiations with NK will do but it is obvious that our past strategy has not been a success.

It would make sense to change your diet to one more likely to result in weight loss, if you're eating 3000 calories per day and not losing weight then it would make sense to eat 2500 calories instead, I wouldn't agree that because eating 5000 calories per day is different than eating 3000 per day that it's more likely you would lose weight by eating 5000 calories per day.

Using the same premise, I don't think it's likely that giving NK less reason to agree to denuclearization is more likely to be successful.

Luckily, it appears South Korea is making enough progress despite Trump to make some progress, if he can at least just avoid messing that up then he should at least get credit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or work harder? Sanctions that could have been put in place, including forcing China's hand. Being active in the issue even when you feel you are at a standstill, not giving up after failure. You know, the usual things that happen in the past when you see a person succeed.

Sanctions have been in place since long before Trump, we've had a policy of escalating sanctions which Trump has continued, and I do give him credit for sticking with the plan.

What NK desires more than just about anything is the legitimacy that comes with meeting the President of the United States, which is why that's been a reward that requires agreeing to full denuclearization to happen.

I'm open to believing that Trump's offer to give this prize away for nothing is actually so stupid that it's brilliant, that he's aware this is what NK wants more than just about anything but that he has a genius plan to actually achieve denuclearization by giving away our main leverage before that happens. The problem with that is he's already said he didn't realize this is something NK has wanted all along, and that there's nothing special about NK wanting to meet the US president now. So between this being a deceptively brilliant plan and a plan based on simple ignorance, it appears it's the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you need someone to explain "whataboutism" to you? Are you under an impression that pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of FOX news in covering two men very differently for saying similar things is whataboutism? Bwahahaha

Why am I not surprised that you are asking who at Fox panned Obama's suggestion that he would meet with our enemies? Are you curious? Are you wondering how obvious the hypocrisy is?

Um, unless you have a different definition for it, duckduckgo says whataboutism is a: "fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"... So uh, yea. You're arguing you are being civil because of hypocrisy by FOX, which isn't logical in the first place, but also deflecting from what Trump is doing by saying that Obama did the same thing, without ever really talking about the actual subject, which is Trump. So, yea, precisely, whataboutism.

Just a list of all the times it has been the other way around:

- Trump is ostracized for congratulating Putin for winning election, Obama did it in 2012

- Obama sheltered from people undermining him as the President, happens (being undermined) everyday to Trump, including death threats

- The rising economy is instantly credited to Obama, still not sure if it's Trump's economy 18 months later

- Decreasing black (and overall) unemployment is a good thing when Obama is President, not even worth scoffing about under Trump

- Hillary calling trump supporters deplorables and black men super-predators is celebrated, Trump calling Hillary nasty is sexist

- KKK supporting Trump makes him racist and a white supremacist, Hillary supporting KKK members makes her admirable

- People accuse Trump of sexual harassment that isn't proven and is called a misogynist, Hillary supporting Bill after lying about ML makes her a champion of women rights

- Obama deported more illegal aliens than Trump, but Trump is racist and against immigration while Obama is praised for DACA

- Trump and GOP supports DACA with modifications (including accepting more than we are now) with a border wall and is ignored, Democrats whine about DACA without doing anything to help them by working with Trump and GOP, but are hailed heroes

- Overwhelming amount of Democrats attack the 2nd Amendment, but don't charge and deport illegal aliens possessing and killing Americans

- Overcome with emotions about Russian interference in the election, gleeful when appointing illegal alien to political seat to oversee Americans

The list goes on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×