Trump, Kim sign "comprehensive" document

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 06:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. And "dude" is right.  

Says another dude on a message board.

Folks may think they know what is truly going on because of their access to social media or because they have become rooted in a ritualistic method of how politics work; however, there's a very good chance they are just as clueless as the ones they suggest don't know how it works.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you actually didn't men something as trivial as "didn't want", what you actually meant was what I suggested "couldn't set the stage.

No, I meant "didn't want to." That's why we required conditions and the DPRK just wanted to make it happen, because we really didn't want to meet.

(06-13-2018, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your Merica trumps all other countries is to be admired, So glad you have such pride in the Nation. Personally, I cannot be that condescending toward other Nations; although, I do realize that POTUS is the most powerful man in the world. 

I didn't say they Trump all other countries, I was saying that the status is different in the meetings.

(06-13-2018, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude typing on a keyboard in a message forum is expounding on how the most powerful man in the world doesn't know how any of it works. 

Yep, sure am. Bureaucrats often know more about how it all works than elected officials. That's why we're bureaucrats.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. No, I meant "didn't want to." That's why we required conditions and the DPRK just wanted to make it happen, because we really didn't want to meet.


2. I didn't say they Trump all other countries, I was saying that the status is different in the meetings.


3. Yep, sure am. Bureaucrats often know more about how it all works than elected officials. That's why we're bureaucrats.

1. OK, you go with didn't want to. I'll go with many wanted to, just could set the conditions.

2. Well you damn sure said we Trump SK. Not sure how one President's is different than another's unless it has something to do with the country

3, I'm sure many a bureaucrat feels exactly as you. Many told Pop Warner he didn't know how it worked when he started using the forward pass.

What folks most likely mean is: this is not how it worked in the past. but that's the laziest "reason" in the world

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 06:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Says another dude on a message board.

Folks may think they know what is truly going on because of their access to social media or because they have become rooted in a ritualistic method of how politics work; however, there's a very good chance they are just as clueless as the ones they suggest don't know how it works.

Well this dude-on-a-message-board knew about the one-China policy. The "most powerful man in the world" did not. 

I also knew health care was complicated and what Brexit was, not to mention the nuclear triad.

Why should this make me "clueless as the ones they suggest don't know hot it works"? It doesn't, unless you change the meaning of "clueless."

Notice that rather than comparing and assessing facts of record, you construct these positional comparisons--dude-on-a-message-board vs the-most-powerful-man-in-the-world. This is simply an appeal to authority, to "faith." We don't assess leaders in a democracy by saying they must know what they are doing because they are "powerful" (after they are elected)--even when it doesn't look like they know what they are doing.

The Pop Warner reference also helps you break away from any kind of grounding in Trump's actual performance and the history of policy--as if simply breaking with tradition in itself assured success. It does not.

[Millhouse]

(06-13-2018, 04:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks kind of move the bar once one hurdle is obtained.

When the talk first arose of Trump meeting with Kim, folks said it will never happen because Trump doesn't know how it works.

Then the Summit was announced and folks said Kim will back out

Then Trump backed out and many said "see I told you"

Then the summit occurred and now folks are saying "it was a failure" for countless reasons

I cannot wait for the spin if NK actually starts denucularization due to groundwork set by this summit

Trump had a face to face meeting with the leader of NK, something no other sitting President has done and the new spin is "because they didn't want to". If we did nothing but establish a bit of rapport with a hostile nucular country it was a success anything built upon it will be a bonus. Unless you are of the ilk that would rather see Trump fails even if it means hurting folk.

The most criticism will be about the human rights of North Koreans not being helped. And I bet anything that those that will say that didn't mention human rights violations when Iran had their temporary deal put in place.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-13-2018, 07:24 PM)Dill Wrote:
Well this dude-on-a-message-board knew about the one-China policy. The "most powerful man in the world" did not. 

I also knew health care was complicated and what Brexit was, not to mention the nuclear triad.

Why should this make me "clueless as the ones they suggest don't know hot it works"?  Do you have to change the meaning of "clueless"?

File some bankruptcies , payoff some pornstars , hire some unregistered foreign agents to run a campaign , and have a revolving door of shitbags in your cabinet and then get back to me.

Rule 1 praise ruthless foreign dictators. Rule 2 give said dictator what they want. Rule 3 reap the Trumpet praise glory

I know i am sleeping better tonight knowing the honorable mr kim is not only friends with rodman but now trump. 

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 07:35 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: File some bankruptcies , payoff some pornstars , hire some unregistered foreign agents to run a campaign , and have a revolving door of shitbags in your cabinet and then get back to me.

Rule 1 praise ruthless foreign dictators. Rule 2 give said dictator what they want. Rule 3 reap the Trumpet praise glory

I know i am sleeping better tonight knowing the honorable mr kim is not only friends with rodman but now trump. 

Now Nati, this just your ritualistic method of how politics work. 

All you really mean is "that's not how it worked in the past."  The new normal is upon us. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you damn sure said we Trump SK. Not sure how one President's is different than another's unless it has something to do with the country

How sad is it that I instinctively capitalize the T for Trump these days?

But yes, I did imply that we trump SK. That is not the same as saying "Merica trumps all other countries," which was what you claimed was my implication.

(06-13-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure many a bureaucrat feels exactly as you. Many told Pop Warner he didn't know how it worked when he started using the forward pass.

What folks most likely mean is: this is not how it worked in the past. but that's the laziest "reason" in the world

Actually, I despise that excuse. I am constantly re-evaluating what we do and seeking improvements. I'm always looking to change things up. The thing is, in order to do that in a way that doesn't screw it all up you need to still understand how it all works. If Pop Warner didn't understand the rules of the game, the fundamentals, and how to most effectively get the best result, then he would have never started using the forward pass. Understanding the fundamentals and how things operate is a necessity to make improvements.

When you jump into the middle of something and start changing things without understanding how it all works, then you are more likely to just destroy.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2018, 07:34 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The most criticism will be about the human rights of North Koreans not being helped. And I bet anything that those that will say that didn't mention human rights violations when Iran had their temporary deal put in place.

Oh, the criticism will come and by the usual suspect; it is why they lose being given the benefit of objectivity. Out POTUS just made an historic move to try and solve the NK situation and all folks can say is how wrong it was. Kinda rings hollow when the past 60 years of "how it's supposed to work" has yielded zero.

As I said I applauded Obama meeting with Cuba's leader; even though I have zero idea what benefit it yielded. But anytime we participate in open dialog is a good thing in my book. Others feel differently.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 07:34 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The most criticism will be about the human rights of North Koreans not being helped. And I bet anything that those that will say that didn't mention human rights violations when Iran had their temporary deal put in place.

That all depends on how much we give them. Denuclearization is huge, but the DPRK is guilty of human rights violations exceeding any other country right now. Iran has nothing on what they do. That must be a point of concern before things get too far. The Iran situation and the DPRK situation are hardly equivalent, but I am unhappy that the Obama administration didn't push harder on those issues. It's something I, and people that were in the administration at the time, have a sense of disappointment about.

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 09:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That all depends on how much we give them. Denuclearization is huge, but the DPRK is guilty of human rights violations exceeding any other country right now. Iran has nothing on what they do. That must be a point of concern before things get too far. The Iran situation and the DPRK situation are hardly equivalent, but I am unhappy that the Obama administration didn't push harder on those issues. It's something I, and people that were in the administration at the time, have a sense of disappointment about.

The Obama team went into the Iran negotiations with great focus, looking to address one problem.

The question was one of priorities: was stalling/preventing an Iranian bomb more important to regional/international security than other issues, such as human rights?  The answer was yes. The goal was in part to prevent a situation of the sort we currently face with NK, namely dealing with Iran AFTER it had a bomb, and in part to enable a shift in foreign policy focus from the Middle East to the Far East. That priority was set in 2009.

Could a nuke deal with Iran  be achieved if human rights issues were brought to the table or restrictions on missile development?  The O-team assessed (correctly I think) that the answer was no.  This was a narrow window of opportunity, which opened momentarily in 2013, and they took advantage of it.

So the choice was between a deal and no human rights discussion, or no deal and no human rights discussion.  The team chose the former.

Nevertheless, I would argue, the issue of human rights was addressed obliquely, as the deal empowered moderates and buoyed the hopes of middle class Iranians.  There was a possibility that the deal, if kept to, would open the Iranian economy enough so there would be strengthened resistance to the conservative "revolutionaries," even regime change incrementally or by revolution.

[BmorePat87]

Reading through this thread and the past threads regarding a potential meeting between Trump and Kim, I am incredibly impressed with how mature and open minded most people were. The majority of posters expressed hope but also reservations given North Korea's history. There was maybe one or two posters per thread that were outright dismissive, but that they were outliers.

There were some people who displayed a pattern in nearly every thread of engaging in attacks unrelated to the topic, often making up stuff or intentionally mischaracterizing posts, but it seems like people are learning to ignore that childish behavior and our threads are becoming more and more productive.

Keep it up, team.

[jj22]

There are people in this thread outraged over athletes kneeling during the anthem. Yet those same people are silent when it comes to Trump, the President of the United States, saluting the army of a foreign enemy in NK. An Army that publicly states it's purpose is the destruction of America. And yet the POTUS gives them the highest form of respect, saved specifically for the U.S military, with a salute? It's never been done before. Unprecedented for the US Commander and Chief. A complete slap to the face of our military. Far worse than kneeling during some song. Where is the outrage from these supposedly "America first", pro Vet people?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 11:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Reading through this thread and the past threads regarding a potential meeting between Trump and Kim, I am incredibly impressed with how mature and open minded most people were. The majority of posters expressed hope but also reservations given North Korea's history. There was maybe one or two posters per thread that were outright dismissive, but that they were outliers.

There were some people who displayed a pattern in nearly every thread of engaging in attacks unrelated to the topic, often making up stuff or intentionally mischaracterizing posts, but it seems like people are learning to ignore that childish behavior and our threads are becoming more and more productive.

Keep it up, team.

I concur, with a few, notable exceptions, this has been rather amicable.

(06-14-2018, 10:04 AM)jj22 Wrote: There are people in this thread outraged over athletes kneeling during the anthem. Yet those same people are silent when it comes to Trump, the President of the United States, saluting the army of a foreign enemy in NK. An Army that publicly states it's purpose is the destruction of America. And yet the POTUS gives them the highest form of respect, saved specifically for the U.S military, with a salute? It's never been done before. Unprecedented for the US Commander and Chief. A complete slap to the face of our military. Far worse than kneeling during some song. Where is the outrage from these supposedly "America first", pro Vet people?

No one appears to be buying your vitriol, perhaps a rethinking of your posting strategy is in order?

[jj22]

What? I get good feedback on my posts. The pics of Trump saluting the NK military commander is all over the net and speaks for itself. There're aren't many people defending this.

What you really mean is you're fine with the U.S Commander in Chief saluting a foreign Army that states in it's bylaws the purpose is the destruction of America.

If you're fine with it just say it...... But don't act like no one cares when there's legit outrage over this unprecedented moment in history. You seem to have no responses but to attack me as if I was the one selling America and our allies out. I love America. I wouldn't be saluting a foreign enemy of this great Nation.

Clearly you would/are fine with it. And I won't be shamed by someone who is fine with that. Certainly not anyone who proudly claims to be a Sociopath (let alone a Steeler fan). It's no wonder you see no wrong in any of this.

[Dill]

(06-13-2018, 11:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the biggest concession in any of those was some aid, right?

In the Agreed Framework, NK got some shipments of oil to make up for the nuclear reactors it destroyed.

The AF did slow down their nuclearization for a number of years. But Bush/Bolton destroyed it in 2002.

They were still trying to "cheat," but on the whole, the Agreement was doing its job for about 8 years.

NK accused the US of cheating too, and rightly I think. Clinton was slowing down oil shipments right after Kim Il Sung died in hopes of regime change. The Republican Congress also stalled the promised aid.  We don't hear much about this, but the US has been a bad player as well.

That is in part why what previous presidents did "wasn't working."

[Griever]

(06-14-2018, 11:04 AM)jj22 Wrote: What? I get good feedback on my posts. The pics of Trump saluting the NK military commander is all over the net and speaks for itself. There're aren't many people defending this.

What you really mean is you're fine with the U.S Commander in Chief saluting a foreign Army that states in it's bylaws the purpose is the destruction of America.

If you're fine with it just say it...... But don't act like no one cares when there's legit outrage over this unprecedented moment in history. You seem to have no responses but to attack me as if I was the one selling America and our allies out. I love America. I wouldn't be saluting a foreign enemy of this great Nation.

Clearly you would/are fine with it. And I won't be shamed by someone who is fine with that. Certainly not anyone who proudly claims to be a Sociopath (let alone a Steeler fan). It's no wonder you see no wrong in any of this.

the members of trumps cult will never say anything negative against Dear Leader

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1007029901071970306?s=19

Hell, even trump told Fox that parents of soldiers killed in the Korean war asked him to bring their sons home

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2018, 02:53 PM)Griever Wrote: I love the photo of him saluting the NK officer.....

This is one of those controversies that I am not jumping on the bandwagon for. I don't have an issue with gestures of respect from our POTUS. Whether was Bush, Obama, or Trump. This is just one of those things that is ridiculous. Sure, it's fun to point out the hypocrisy of those that bashed Obama, but that gets tiring and it isn't helpful.

[Griever]

(06-14-2018, 02:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is one of those controversies that I am not jumping on the bandwagon for. I don't have an issue with gestures of respect from our POTUS. Whether was Bush, Obama, or Trump. This is just one of those things that is ridiculous. Sure, it's fun to point out the hypocrisy of those that bashed Obama, but that gets tiring and it isn't helpful.

i get why people are mad

its one thing to be bowing at/towards/in the presence of a saudi prince (which both trump and obama did)

its a different thing to salute a military official of a military that has pledged the destruction of america

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2018, 03:12 PM)Griever Wrote: i get why people are mad

its one thing to be bowing at/towards/in the presence of a saudi prince (which both trump and obama did)

its a different thing to salute a military official of a military that has pledged the destruction of america

Eh, I've got more important things to worry about.