Cold hard truth

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
“They are saying well, Obama could have done that,” Trump said. “Trust me, he wouldn’t have did that. And neither would Bush and neither would Clinton. And they had their shot. And all they did was nothing.”

I don't know how you get past that irrefutable fact, and yet I notice the mindless haters are trying to do just that.

Obama, Bush, Clinton - they had their chance and all they did was nothing.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
“They are saying well, Obama could have done that,” Trump said. “Trust me, he wouldn’t have did that. And neither would Bush and neither would Clinton. And they had their shot. And all they did was nothing.”

I don't know how you get past that irrefutable fact, and yet I notice the mindless haters are trying to do just that.

Obama, Bush, Clinton - they had their chance and all they did was nothing.

Jesus...how blind can one be? How ignorant of history???

No leader of a major developed nation has had a Presidential meeting with North Korea...ever. Any idea WHY you think that might be? Might it be because that meeting would legitimize the North Korean dictator? (the answer is yes) Might it be because the leader of North Korea can not be trusted? (also yes).

In Oct 2000, the US sent Sec State Madeleine Albright to N. Korea as a precursor to high level talks and a meeting with Pres. Clinton. The meetings went nowhere and the Presidential visit never occurred. Successive US Presidents wanted to see N Korea do something, give up something before any further talks. N. Korea did not...so nothing happened.

And here we are today, with an impetuous, incompetent and inept President who--without consulting anyone---just up and agrees to meet Kim. No preconditions. No lower level talks. Trump can't send Tillerson to speak with his N. Korean counterpart since Trump kneecapped Tillerson with this announcement. The State Dept is being gutted of its institutional knowledge in any case.

So, while a blind cult follower will stand up and cheer that Trump has agreed to something no one else "could" have done, intelligent, rational, and reasonable people concerned about the future of this country know exactly what happened: an incompetent President did want any other President could have. No other President chose to do so because it was not in the interest of the United States or the rest of the world to legitimize the dictatorial leader of North Korea.

Now...when this meeting fails...which is the highest probability of occurrence...what happens next? What options does the US have on the table? None. That is why diplomacy is such a long process...it gives each sides the ability to step back...without catastrophic consequences. Trump and his followers don't understand the conditions, the reality or the dangers of just about anything so it is no wonder you all can't see the consequences.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

No leader of a major developed nation has had a Presidential meeting with North Korea...ever. Any idea WHY you think that might be? Might it be because that meeting would legitimize the North Korean dictator? (the answer is yes) Might it be because the leader of North Korea can not be trusted? (also yes).

Hey look douche nozzle, Kim of North Korea is already recognized, world wide, de facto, by all countries, as the legitimate in-charge dude of his country. What Trump is doing is allowing a dictator to save face in a world setting. Yes, even dictators are people too with feelings and emotions and those feelings and emotions need to be soothed over and massaged to get things done that will benefit our Country and the world community. Maybe you should read "The Art of the Deal" to better understand what Trump is doing?
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Jesus...how blind can one be? How ignorant of history???

No leader of a major developed nation has had a Presidential meeting with North Korea...ever. Any idea WHY you think that might be? Might it be because that meeting would legitimize the North Korean dictator? (the answer is yes) Might it be because the leader of North Korea can not be trusted? (also yes).

In Oct 2000, the US sent Sec State Madeleine Albright to N. Korea as a precursor to high level talks and a meeting with Pres. Clinton. The meetings went nowhere and the Presidential visit never occurred. Successive US Presidents wanted to see N Korea do something, give up something before any further talks. N. Korea did not...so nothing happened.

And here we are today, with an impetuous, incompetent and inept President who--without consulting anyone---just up and agrees to meet Kim. No preconditions. No lower level talks. Trump can't send Tillerson to speak with his N. Korean counterpart since Trump kneecapped Tillerson with this announcement. The State Dept is being gutted of its institutional knowledge in any case.

So, while a blind cult follower will stand up and cheer that Trump has agreed to something no one else "could" have done, intelligent, rational, and reasonable people concerned about the future of this country know exactly what happened: an incompetent President did want any other President could have. No other President chose to do so because it was not in the interest of the United States or the rest of the world to legitimize the dictatorial leader of North Korea.

Now...when this meeting fails...which is the highest probability of occurrence...what happens next? What options does the US have on the table? None. That is why diplomacy is such a long process...it gives each sides the ability to step back...without catastrophic consequences. Trump and his followers don't understand the conditions, the reality or the dangers of just about anything so it is no wonder you all can't see the consequences.

Which country doesn't recognize N. Korea as a country and Kim Jung Un as its legal leader?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Kim of North Korea is already recognized, world wide, de facto, by all countries, as the legitimate in-charge dude of his country.

I'm not sure why they trotted out that "oh, it just legitimizes him :drama:" talking point. It's one of the dumber ones they've come up with.

What Trump is doing is allowing a dictator to save face in a world setting.

:yay:

I guess progs don't get that sort of education working the register at McDonalds.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Jesus...how blind can one be? How ignorant of history???

No leader of a major developed nation has had a Presidential meeting with North Korea...ever. Any idea WHY you think that might be? Might it be because that meeting would legitimize the North Korean dictator? (the answer is yes) Might it be because the leader of North Korea can not be trusted? (also yes).

In Oct 2000, the US sent Sec State Madeleine Albright to N. Korea as a precursor to high level talks and a meeting with Pres. Clinton. The meetings went nowhere and the Presidential visit never occurred. Successive US Presidents wanted to see N Korea do something, give up something before any further talks. N. Korea did not...so nothing happened.

And here we are today, with an impetuous, incompetent and inept President who--without consulting anyone---just up and agrees to meet Kim. No preconditions. No lower level talks. Trump can't send Tillerson to speak with his N. Korean counterpart since Trump kneecapped Tillerson with this announcement. The State Dept is being gutted of its institutional knowledge in any case.

So, while a blind cult follower will stand up and cheer that Trump has agreed to something no one else "could" have done, intelligent, rational, and reasonable people concerned about the future of this country know exactly what happened: an incompetent President did want any other President could have. No other President chose to do so because it was not in the interest of the United States or the rest of the world to legitimize the dictatorial leader of North Korea.

Now...when this meeting fails...which is the highest probability of occurrence...what happens next? What options does the US have on the table? None. That is why diplomacy is such a long process...it gives each sides the ability to step back...without catastrophic consequences. Trump and his followers don't understand the conditions, the reality or the dangers of just about anything so it is no wonder you all can't see the consequences.

I think Trump is right to try this. The other approaches haven't worked. This is a case where we can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a better result.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
There are at least three: ROK, France, and Japan.

ROK seems to accept them as legitimate, they've been hosting a contingent for the last several weeks. I'm not sure about Japan, but France sits on the security council and voted yes to accept them into the UN so it looks like they also accept them as legitimate.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I think Trump is right to try this. The other approaches haven't worked. This is a case where we can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a better result.

Tranny says no other President has met Kim and then she says Clinton was ready to but it didn't come about and then she calls Trump stupid.
I suppose that makes sense to her.

Tranny said a meeting with Kim would legitimize Kim. Kim is running the country whether anyone recognizes him as doing so or not.
How much legitimacy does he need outside N Korea? Actually none.
How is it in the interest of the United States to keep not recognizing the N. Koreans while they build Nuclear Weapons and Missiles to deliver them?

I wish Tranny would disclose to us how diplomacy works when you ignore a Countries leadership.
Maybe she can tell us how great our diplomacy has been working with N. Korea.
 

Starman

New Member
ROK seems to accept them as legitimate, they've been hosting a contingent for the last several weeks. I'm not sure about Japan, but France sits on the security council and voted yes to accept them into the UN so it looks like they also accept them as legitimate.

Fair enough, but I'd say if there aren't formal diplomatic relations (such as is the case with France) then they're not properly recognized as a sovereign nation.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but I'd say if there aren't formal diplomatic relations (such as is the case with France) then they're not properly recognized as a sovereign nation.

I believe that there is a history of breaking Diplomatic relations with many countries that were recognised as sovereign countries.

Breaking Diplomatic relations is sometimes a diplomatic maneuver.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think Trump is right to try this. The other approaches haven't worked. This is a case where we can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a better result.

In the past a Kim has rattled his saber and the US threw some money his way. NK isn't going to nuke us. They were never going to nuke us. They wanted their payday, that's all.

Trump, because he's an alpha male, isn't going to play that game because it makes the big ol' US of A look like it's scared of this dumb punk loudmouth nobody. Our last three presidents loved nothing more than negotiating with terrorists and pretending that the US was France, all shaking in its boots because some kid demanded our lunch money.

Not Daddy, though.

:patriot:

Yes, we could continue to pay that little turd indefinitely, but I can think of way better things to do with that money.
 
Top