|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations).
to call anything inevitable with regards to NK would be a mistake don’t you think? (understanding i think that this is paraphrasing and not your own words)
would you care to lay out what moves by DJT led us to this point specifically? I’m especially interested in something where you can tie in a forethought that leads us here.
|
On March 07 2018 01:02 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Am I missing something? Don't they say this every time they need food? "No more nukes if you help a brother out. Yum, that was tasty. btw, gonna nuke you." Yes, this is generally the way things go. Though from what I've read, food prices have remained stable despite the West's sanctions hitting North Korean exports hard meaning they're still finding a way to make things work with countries/companies willing to circumvent the sanctions. Of course, North Korean economic data is pretty spotty at best but its long been argued that sanctions don't really do a whole lot but screw the target's population. At the end of the day, North Korea wants the nuclear missile program to work so they can guarantee their own existence and use it as leverage to deter the US. They're going into these meetings with the implied threat that they'll only stop missile tests if dialogue with the US is maintained and only denuclearize if the US military threat is no longer a problem. Neither of these things are happening. They're not really going in these meetings for peace or reunification, they want a reduction in sanctions and an influx of aid money. They're basically forcing the US to come to the negotiation table unless the US wants to look like the clear aggressor to everyone in the region. After all, North Korea has started talks with a pro-unification South Korean administration and has even thrown the US a bone by allowing US-South Korean military drills to continue. People assume North Korea is run by an insane moron but its a pretty rational actor in the grand scheme of things.Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:
Last time I checked we don’t have an ambassador to South Korea. Is that still the case? Its still vacant, the entire DOS has been gutted under Tillerson.
People seem to really underestimate the influence of the constant threat of obliteration/assassination/replacement with US puppets on one's actions.
Or just presume the US isn't acting in direct opposition to other countries' interests in the pursuit of our own.
|
On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8.
Well they're both geriatrics who were/are senile presidents so I guess they have something in common.
|
On March 07 2018 01:46 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8. Well they're both geriatrics who were/are senile presidents so I guess they have something in common.
Reagan filled out the State department’s staff and let his advisors talk him out of returning to the gold standard, which are marked improvements over Trump. And he didn’t pick fights with our two closes trading partners for literally no reason.
|
On March 07 2018 01:41 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). to call anything inevitable with regards to NK would be a mistake don’t you think? would you care to lay out what moves by DJT led us to this point specifically? I’m especially interested in something where you can tie in a forethought that leads us here.
In my eyes, Trump totally doing his best to impose tariffs adds credibility to his threats to NK. He just might do something hopelessly reckless. He might end up deciding millions of south koreans are worth the points scored by taking out NK. His tariff shtick showed he will always side with principle rather than reason. He won't be the adult in the room as was always the case with Bush/Obama/Clinton. In a weird way, it forces North Korea to be the adult in the room.
This is all assuming this isn't the same shit we've seen every time. Which I am not convinced of. I still don't understand why we are even discussing this. NK has said this before. Nothing they have said or done makes me think they are even anywhere close to giving up their nukes. No one should be convinced or even paying attention. We have heard this exact same thing so many times.
However, *if* NK was to get serious this time, I think a part of that could indeed be owed to Trump not being an insecure shitbag.
Trump's principles will hurt us on trade because Europe has a lot more wiggle room than NK. Europe/China/South America are able to work together to undercut our tariffs, but North Korea doesn't really have anywhere to go. NK can't just accept a nuke and move on.
|
|
|
So what? Nothing is going to happen
|
WE GOT HER! WE GOT HER!
Oh...wait...no, we didn't get her.
|
On March 07 2018 01:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 01:41 brian wrote:On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). to call anything inevitable with regards to NK would be a mistake don’t you think? would you care to lay out what moves by DJT led us to this point specifically? I’m especially interested in something where you can tie in a forethought that leads us here. In my eyes, Trump totally doing his best to impose tariffs adds credibility to his threats to NK. He just might do something hopelessly reckless. He might end up deciding millions of south koreans are worth the points scored by taking out NK. His tariff shtick showed he will always side with principle rather than reason. He won't be the adult in the room as was always the case with Bush/Obama/Clinton. In a weird way, it forces North Korea to be the adult in the room.
Bush imposed a similar tariff with no regard to reason, whereas it's not yet 100% certain that Trump will. He also destroyed a country based on made up evidence. Why would NK be more scared of a barking dog than of one with a history of biting?
|
This whole thing has shown we should have a special counsel for every administration. Mueller's office should just become a permanent part of government. Mueller is basically doing what should have been happening to begin with.
If a democrat wins in 2020, I would fully support Mueller being hired to investigate every fucking detail of the entire cabinet. Imagine a world where everyone knew as soon as they are president, every dollar they've ever spent would be investigated? It would be amazing. The elite would finally answer to someone. We have no accountability in government and Mueller is proving that.
|
Mueller <> OSC, and the OSC is actually a permanent federal agency.
that said i don’t know how to understand their loyalties without a memo from Nunes. Clearly we need to begin discrediting them ASAP.
but i am also on board for lowering the potential for rampant corruption in the cabinet.
|
On March 07 2018 02:24 brian wrote:
Mueller <> OSC, and the OSC is actually a permanent federal agency.
that said i don’t know how to understand their loyalties without a memo from Nunes. Clearly we need to begin discrediting them ASAP.
but i am also on board for lowering the potential for rampant corruption in the cabinet.
Yeah well apparently the OSC is kinda lacking. It isn't effective. My point is that in a functional government, everything Mueller is finding should have already been known by another oversight agency. And that agency should be able to subpoena and all that shit just like Mueller. I want our government to be utterly terrified.
|
The Hatch act is supposed to be enforced by the president on their own staff and by congress if the president fails to do so. It isn't supposed to be this career ending rule, because it is understood that political parties have to run for office and people fuck up. This is another case of Trump's White House just not giving a fuck about the rules and showing that we really rely on elected officials respecting the role of their office.
And before people say we need better rules. There are other laws and rules that will trip up the current White House and the FBI is digging into that. The Hatch Act isn't the thing that needs to be tightened, IMO.
|
On March 07 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:
The Hatch act is supposed to be enforced by the president on their own staff and by congress if the president fails to do so. It isn't supposed to be this career ending rule, because it is understood that political parties have to run for office and people fuck up. This is another case of Trump's White House just not giving a fuck about the rules and showing that we really rely on elected officials respecting the role of their office.
And before people say we need better rules. There are other laws and rules that will trip up the current White House and the FBI is digging into that. The Hatch Act isn't the thing that needs to be tightened, IMO.
I guess from my perspective, we've seen Mueller's office be wildly successful so far. Even if it turns out Trump did nothing wrong, a ton of people did. A ton of those people would have never suffered for it. If I were in a position to do so, I would advocate for permanently funding Mueller's office to continuously investigate all members of all branches of government.
|
On March 07 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:30 Plansix wrote:
The Hatch act is supposed to be enforced by the president on their own staff and by congress if the president fails to do so. It isn't supposed to be this career ending rule, because it is understood that political parties have to run for office and people fuck up. This is another case of Trump's White House just not giving a fuck about the rules and showing that we really rely on elected officials respecting the role of their office.
And before people say we need better rules. There are other laws and rules that will trip up the current White House and the FBI is digging into that. The Hatch Act isn't the thing that needs to be tightened, IMO. I guess from my perspective, we've seen Mueller's office be wildly successful so far. Even if it turns out Trump did nothing wrong, a ton of people did. A ton of those people would have never suffered for it. If I were in a position to do so, I would advocate for permanently funding Mueller's office to continuously investigate all members of all branches of government.
I would prefer reforms take place just like after Nixon. The FBI needs to go back to not investigating our elected officials for a good while.
|
On March 07 2018 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:24 brian wrote:
Mueller <> OSC, and the OSC is actually a permanent federal agency.
that said i don’t know how to understand their loyalties without a memo from Nunes. Clearly we need to begin discrediting them ASAP.
but i am also on board for lowering the potential for rampant corruption in the cabinet. Yeah well apparently the OSC is kinda lacking. It isn't effective.
that’s what i’m talking about. now to get Nunes on task..
i kid, i generally agree. and i also appreciate your follow up post in spirit and wish in a perfect world that it made sense. but at some point federal employees also have their own civil rights. I don’t know if signing up for office is akin to waiving away your right to privacy, or your probable cause or anything like that. They need to be able to still be private citizens in their off time, not subject to investigation just because they want to serve their country(well, in other administrations.)
|
On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8.
If Trump worship replaces Reagan worship perhaps we can lose reaganomics in the process, which, hey, I'll take what I can get.
|
On March 07 2018 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8. If Trump worship replaces Reagan worship perhaps we can lose reaganomics in the process, which, hey, I'll take what I can get.
Is a Republican Party dominated by Trumponomics going to be better going forward? Future Republicans looking back on Trump and going 'Trump, now THERE's a President! If only we were more like Trump!'
Call me crazy but that doesn't sound good.
|
On March 07 2018 02:49 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
good joke; was worth a helpful laugh.
Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8. If Trump worship replaces Reagan worship perhaps we can lose reaganomics in the process, which, hey, I'll take what I can get. Is a Republican Party dominated by Trumponomics going to be better going forward? Future Republicans looking back on Trump and going 'Trump, now THERE's a President! If only we were more like Trump!' Call me crazy but that doesn't sound good.
Trump economic plans fail a lot faster, so I am all for it. Nothing wins Americans over like imposing a tax on foreign consumer goods. He should put a tariff on coffee. Then we can renew our vows to our nations history by dumping a bunch of overtaxed coffee into the sea.
|
On March 07 2018 02:49 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 07 2018 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote:On March 07 2018 00:45 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:31 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:19 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2018 00:13 zlefin wrote:On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
good joke; was worth a helpful laugh.
Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball. no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke. while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke. I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue. When was the last time ROK envoys met with the DPRK in Pyongyang? When is the last time someone met with Kim Jong Un? what is the relevance of those questions to my point? I don't see you providing any. you'll need to explain your point, cuz it's no tclear at all. I'll answer them for you because I don't want to go through the application process of fulfilling whatever your criteria will end up being to justify my responding to your elaborate treatise, "good joke." 11 years and never. My point is it's fatuous to feign ignorance at the suggestion Trump could have a modicum of responsibility in anything that might even be slightly be good. Does that make sense? LegalLord's post is only a troll from the perspective of he's clever enough to realize mention of Trump and Obama in the same sentence is guaranteed to send you sputtering. The record is clear that Obama completely failed. I was promised a whole presidency of fingers twitching near the nuke button based on Trumps tweeting at KJU and his personality. Now, I’ll be enjoying the takes that this was inevitable and Trump deserves zero credit (and just forget that I told you last month that this was all impossible because Trump screwed the pooch with provocations). I gotta say, the comparison between Trump and Reagan is becoming uncanny. The only real difference at this point is that social media allows the shrill Left to screech at an 11 instead of an 8. If Trump worship replaces Reagan worship perhaps we can lose reaganomics in the process, which, hey, I'll take what I can get. Is a Republican Party dominated by Trumponomics going to be better going forward? Future Republicans looking back on Trump and going 'Trump, now THERE's a President! If only we were more like Trump!' Call me crazy but that doesn't sound good.
There are no trumponomics, he's not smart enough to create a coherent plan. His image is the only thing that can stick and people can attribute a bunch of often contradictory economical positions to him, which dilutes the power of the message. Much better than reaganomics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
