POTUS UN Speech

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, got it.  If the DPRK launches an attack on anyone in the next few weeks it will be Trump's fault.


So, it's your opinion on how a President should act and speak that he is violating.  Cool, got it.


Congratulations, you won the award for the most facile analogy of the day.  

For all of youse that don't have a 6th grade education.

fac·ile

ˈfasəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
   

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, it's your opinion on how a President should act and speak that he is violating.  Cool, got it.

To be honest...not just mine.

I'd like to believe that most people do not want the POTUS using names rather than the actual names of other world leaders.  Especially when discussing a serious issue.

But then a lot of Trump's supporters think his name calling tweets are signs of a strong leader.  Of course this wasn't a tweet from the bathroom at 6am either.

I mean, there might be an example of another speech by a world leader on the world stage where they used a nick name they made up to discuss another country's leader, but I am unaware of it.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2017, 01:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For all of youse that don't have a 6th grade education.

fac·ile

ˈfasəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
   

Like saying we will completely destroy another nation but not giving the parameters that would cause that?  Or just calling terrorists "losers"?  

Actually that kind of sums up the entire Trump platform or "plan".

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2017, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump's nicknames are stupid, although they certainly helped get him elected.  I don't get why it bothers anyone though, the guy is who he is, he's no different then he was when he was elected.

I don't think hurling insults at someone capable of killing millions of our allies and potentially tens of thousands of Americans is an appropriate way of dealing with the leader of a rogue nation who has destructive tendencies and is probably emotionally stunted. I'm not saying this is why Kim may act, but it certainly would help push him to make "madman" decisions. 

Then again, maybe it's the ol' Nixon madman ploy?

From a different standpoint, I think the tendencies of Chavez and Kim 2 and 3 to hurl insults was a symptom of their irrelevance. Seeing it from our leader makes us seem equally childish and unfit to be world leaders, potentially damaging our position within the global community (though it'll take a lot more to truly have us on the outs). 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, got it.  If the DPRK launches an attack on anyone in the next few weeks it will be Trump's fault.


So, it's your opinion on how a President should act and speak that he is violating.  Cool, got it.


Congratulations, you won the award for the most facile analogy of the day.  

It's an honor just to be nominated. I'll take your nonanswer as a, "Yes."

By your logic, I shouldn't be bothered by anything because everything is what it is. So therefore, all the people who bother you shouldn't because that is who they are.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 01:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: For all of youse that don't have a 6th grade education.

fac·ile

ˈfasəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
   

Be honest, you looked that up for yourself.

As for the speech, I think it is just a continuing trend of damage being done to our image around the world. He has consistently made efforts to harm our abilities to engage in diplomacy with other countries and he has no concern, or likely understanding, for the foreign affairs aspect of the job (or any other aspect, really, but I'm just focusing on this part for this post).

The POTUS is or country's Diplomat in Chief, and he is a shitty one.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2017, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Be honest, you looked that up for yourself.

As for the speech, I think it is just a continuing trend of damage being done to our image around the world. He has consistently made efforts to harm our abilities to engage in diplomacy with other countries and he has no concern, or likely understanding, for the foreign affairs aspect of the job (or any other aspect, really, but I'm just focusing on this part for this post).

The POTUS is or country's Diplomat in Chief, and he is a shitty one.

No comment.

In actuality it is one of those words where I got the gist of the meaning through context,   but if someone asked me to define it, I couldn't.  

[*jason*]

(09-20-2017, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: To be honest...not just mine.

I'd like to believe that most people do not want the POTUS using names rather than the actual names of other world leaders.  Especially when discussing a serious issue.

But then a lot of Trump's supporters think his name calling tweets are signs of a strong leader.  Of course this wasn't a tweet from the bathroom at 6am either.

I mean, there might be an example of another speech by a world leader on the world stage where they used a nick name they made up to discuss another country's leader, but I am unaware of it.

Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad (don't remember which) implied the George W. Bush was Satan in front if the UN years ago. I believe he said he could smell the sulphur and brimstone at the podium after Bush had made his speech. That's the company this putz puts himself in when he behaves like this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2017, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: To be honest...not just mine.

I'd like to believe that most people do not want the POTUS using names rather than the actual names of other world leaders.  Especially when discussing a serious issue.

But then a lot of Trump's supporters think his name calling tweets are signs of a strong leader.  Of course this wasn't a tweet from the bathroom at 6am either.

I mean, there might be an example of another speech by a world leader on the world stage where they used a nick name they made up to discuss another country's leader, but I am unaware of it.

It's certainly not typical, but nor is it unheard of.  Some have likened it to Kruschev, others have likened it to Hugo Chavez.  The Chavez analogy amuses me quite a bit, seeing how Chavez is/was a darling of the far left who absolutely ate up his speeches about Bush and the stench of brimstone.  I suppose this kind of speech is appealing or unappealing based on whether you find the speaker and target appealing or unappealing.

(09-20-2017, 01:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like saying we will completely destroy another nation but not giving the parameters that would cause that?  Or just calling terrorists "losers"?  

Actually that kind of sums up the entire Trump platform or "plan".

No, not at all like that.

(09-20-2017, 01:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think hurling insults at someone capable of killing millions of our allies and potentially tens of thousands of Americans is an appropriate way of dealing with the leader of a rogue nation who has destructive tendencies and is probably emotionally stunted. I'm not saying this is why Kim may act, but it certainly would help push him to make "madman" decisions. 

Then again, maybe it's the ol' Nixon madman ploy?

From a different standpoint, I think the tendencies of Chavez and Kim 2 and 3 to hurl insults was a symptom of their irrelevance. Seeing it from our leader makes us seem equally childish and unfit to be world leaders, potentially damaging our position within the global community (though it'll take a lot more to truly have us on the outs). 

You make solid points, as usual.  I do think part of it is the "madman" tactic.  What can be stated without doubt is that standard approaches to North Korea have not worked and are unlikely to work.  Whether the current Trump "strategy" will work or not remains to be seen.  

(09-20-2017, 01:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's an honor just to be nominated. I'll take your nonanswer as a, "Yes."

By your logic, I shouldn't be bothered by anything because everything is what it is. So therefore, all the people who bother you shouldn't because that is who they are.

Let's be honest, your question didn't deserve a serious answer because it was inane, and no, your second point is erroneous as well.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 01:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No comment.

In actuality it is one of those words where I got the gist of the meaning through context,   but if someone asked me to define it, I couldn't.  

I get that. It's one of those times when understanding the root words helps out.

[*michaelsean*]

Do we know that the little guy didn't take Rocket Man as a compliment?

[*jason*]

(09-20-2017, 01:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do we know that the little guy didn't take Rocket Man as a compliment?

Lil Kim is so much better than Rocket Man.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-20-2017, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump's nicknames are stupid, although they certainly helped get him elected. I don't get why it bothers anyone though, the guy is who he is, he's no different then he was when he was elected.

Exactly. Amazes me why anyone gets upset over this stuff

[StLucieBengal]

(09-20-2017, 12:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I wonder if parents of US troops stationed in South Korea were laughing.

Their children are in the military and they know they are in harms way.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's be honest, your question didn't deserve a serious answer because it was inane,

Actually, the word you're searching for is rhetorical, not inane. The question didn't require an answer because we both already knew the answer was yes.

The question demonstrated that people bother you even though they are who they are. The anti-Trumps are still the anti-Trumps and the have been the anti-Trumps since before Trump was elected so I don't understand why they bother you.

Quote:and no, your second point is erroneous as well.

Then explain why you can be bothered by the anti-Trumps, but others can't be bothered by Trump given they are who they are and they have been that way since before Trump was elected.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2017, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Actually, the word you're searching for is rhetorical, not inane.

It was both.  They aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote:The question didn't require an answer because we both already knew the answer was yes.

Yes, the answer to your facile question is yes, for anyone.

Quote:The question demonstrated that people bother you even though they are who they are. The anti-Trumps are still the anti-Trumps and the have been the anti-Trumps since before Trump was elected so I don't understand why they bother you.

They don't bother me, they intrigue me.  I wonder what it must be like to be upset about things like Trump's UN speech or Obama saying, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon".

Quote:Then explain why you can be bothered by the anti-Trumps, but others can't be bothered by Trump given they are who they are and they have been that way since before Trump was elected.

I just did.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-20-2017, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It was both.  They aren't mutually exclusive.



Yes, the answer to your facile question is yes, for anyone.



They don't bother me, they intrigue me.  I wonder what it must be like to be upset about things like Trump's UN speech or Obama saying, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon".



I just did.

So you complain repeatedly because you're intrigued, not bothered. Got it

Let me use another facile analogy. Trump bothers people because he is Trump, not because he isn't Trump. Take me for example, I don't like mustard. I don't want mustard on my hamburger. So it bothers me when a restaurant puts mustard on my hamburger after I ask for them to hold the mustard. I'm bothered because the mustard is mustard. Now if mustard was something other than mustard it might not bother me. Say, if mustard suddenly became something other than mustard like . . . um . . . ketchup, then it wouldn't bother me. Why? Because it's not ***** mustard. And mustard, not ketchup, bothers intrigues me. So you see there really isn't anything complicated about this. Rather, it's really quite simple. Although I appreciate the completely unnecessary vocabulary lesson. Unless you think whether or not you like or dislike mustard is a complicated subject. Do you think your opinion of mustard is complicated?

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 02:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Exactly. Amazes me why anyone gets upset over this stuff

Could be that some people don't like their country being the laughing stock of the rest of the western world.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2017, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Could be that some people don't like their country being the laughing stock of the rest of the western world.

I'm pretty sure France is still a country.  

[*bfine32*]

Would anyone be mad at trump if he called N. Korea the JV squad or is it just Rocketman we have issue with?