TRUMP Thread

Madeleine said:
Yeah, I haven't submitted an analysis on the linguistics of past presidents because we were talking about Trump. What we need is China. I think someone must have explained that to him before his last Asia trip from the way he spoke with them.
Click to expand...
You stated:
'He doesn't understand that as President of the United States EVERY SINGLE WORD you speak or write publicly matters. You can't make a verbal threat of war when at the same time your foreign minister is trying to get something done through diplomacy."

If we are to accept your consensus, then all of our Presidents and various country leaders dealing with N.Korea and their launched threats... didnt understand that concept either.
Because It was taken so seriously even in 2010, that world leaders reacted, according to the BBC:

- 'South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak ordered the military to retaliate against North Korean targets in case of "additional provocations", his spokesman said...
"North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- Obama's White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action", adding that the US was "firmly committed" to South Korea's defence."
Earlier on, the president's office said: "North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- An emergency session of the United Nations Security Council could be held on Tuesday or Wednesday, a French diplomatic source said.

- Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, said he had ordered ministers to prepare for any eventuality.

"I ordered them to make preparations so that we can react firmly, should any unexpected event occur," he said after an emergency cabinet meeting in Tokyo.

- Russia's foreign minister warned of a "colossal danger", and said those behind the attack carried a huge responsibility..."


So as you see, Trump's retalitory response is no more threatening than many other LEADERS', including those from a N.Korean ally.

It is imperative, now that l provided you an analysis on the linguistics of past presidents, that we keep it in context whilst discussing provocateur N. Korea, and their real threats of nuclear war against the U.S.A, Japan and South Korea.
 
What Clinton, Dubya and Obama understood is that you can only try to CONTAIN North Korea, not defeat them. There is no viable military option because of their proximity to South Korea.

We hit North Korea and South Korea burns.
Trump and his pals believe their is a real military option available to defeat North Korea, when really they're isn't. Not unless Trump is willing to destroy two counties to get rid of one dictator.

And yet Trump continues to insult and provoke North Korea with tweets. Historically you don't ease tensions with a madman via public insults.
In fact Trump's public stance against North Korea has accelerated their ballistic missile program, not halted it.

Trump has made direct military threats in public against North Korea, statements that have not been vetted or cleared by his State Department or Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.

Add the fact that Trump has cut off all diplomatic channels with North Korea, and do you really wonder why much of the world believes Trump has brought us several steps closet to a nuclear exchange with North Korea??

Instead of defending everything Trump does, why not ask yourself if Trump is approaching this problem the right way??

We have an understaffed Stated Department at the absolutely worst time during this conflict, the Secretary of State has ZERO foreign policy expertise or experience and has summarily been cutting staff of career foreign service and diplomatic employees.

That's a prescription for war.

The difference between past world leaders' response to North Korea and today is that we KNOW that North Korea has nukes and possibly missiles capable of carrying a thermonuclear payload to the west coast of the United States.

The only way to defeat the Kim regime is to literally starve them out. Cut off ALL foreign aid and watch his grip on the country collapse when his army no longer has enough food to eat.
I know it's not as fun as dropping bombs, but it's the only sane long term strategy.
 
andreboba said:
What Clinton, Dubya and Obama understood is that you can only try to CONTAIN North Korea, not defeat them. There is no viable military option because of their proximity to South Korea.

We hit North Korea and South Korea burns.
Trump and his pals believe their is a real military option available to defeat North Korea, when really they're isn't. Not unless Trump is willing to destroy two counties to get rid of one dictator.

And yet Trump continues to insult and provoke North Korea with tweets. Historically you don't ease tensions with a madman via public insults.
In fact Trump's public stance against North Korea has accelerated their ballistic missile program, not halted it.

Trump has made direct military threats in public against North Korea, statements that have not been vetted or cleared by his State Department or Joint Chiefs of Staff. That's an extremely dangerous way to conduct foreign policy.

Add the fact that Trump has cut off all diplomatic channels with North Korea, and do you really wonder why much of the world believes Trump has brought us several steps closet to a nuclear exchange with North Korea??

Instead of defending everything Trump does, why not ask yourself if Trump is approaching this problem the right way??

We have an understaffed Stated Department at the absolutely worst time during this conflict, the Secretary of State has ZERO foreign policy expertise or experience and has summarily been cutting staff of career foreign service and diplomatic employees.

That's a prescription for war.

The difference between past world leaders' response to North Korea and today is that we KNOW that North Korea has nukes and possibly missiles capable of carrying a thermonuclear payload to the west coast of the United States.

The only way to defeat the Kim regime is to literally starve them out. Cut off ALL foreign aid and watch his grip on the country collapse when his army no longer has enough food to eat.
I know it's not as fun as dropping bombs, but it's the only sane long term strategy.
Click to expand...
Is this assuming South Koreas military is weak or than Kim would nuke it?
 
Madeleine said:
I think it's assuming that Kim would drop the nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...
That would guarantee the end of his country. He can't possibly win that way. He makes himself out to be crazy, and perhaps he is by our standards, yet he is more rational than people realize, if you really look at it and him for what he is.

He's not dumb, but rather self centered and only focused on the survival if his regime, using nukes would be counter to his goals.
 
Kim Jung Un has an array of conventional missiles lined up and point at Seoul, SK.

The assumption is if we strike NK, they will retaliate with a barrage of missiles against SK.
 
Beasty said:
That would guarantee the end of his country. He can't possibly win that way. He makes himself out to be crazy, and perhaps he is by our standards, yet he is more rational than people realize, if you really look at it and him for what he is.

He's not dumb, but rather self centered and only focused on the survival if his regime, using nukes would be counter to his goals.
Click to expand...
Isn't South Korea something like his hostage? He knows it'd be difficult for an American president to risk for South Korea to be wiped out, even if that meant North Korea is also wiped out.
 
andreboba said:
Kim Jung Un has an array of conventional missiles lined up and point at Seoul, SK.

The assumption is if we strike NK, they will retaliate with a barrage of missiles against SK.
Click to expand...
South Korea won't burn that way. They are more than capable of hitting back. North Koreas capital will burn just as quickly if they think they can burn South Korea without a full scale attack. You cant smash a country like the hulk when your own capital is on fire.
 
Bliss said:
You stated:
'He doesn't understand that as President of the United States EVERY SINGLE WORD you speak or write publicly matters. You can't make a verbal threat of war when at the same time your foreign minister is trying to get something done through diplomacy."

If we are to accept your consensus, then all of our Presidents and various country leaders dealing with N.Korea and their launched threats... didnt understand that concept either.
Because It was taken so seriously even in 2010, that world leaders reacted, according to the BBC:

- 'South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak ordered the military to retaliate against North Korean targets in case of "additional provocations", his spokesman said...
"North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- Obama's White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action", adding that the US was "firmly committed" to South Korea's defence."
Earlier on, the president's office said: "North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong island constitutes a clear armed provocation."

- An emergency session of the United Nations Security Council could be held on Tuesday or Wednesday, a French diplomatic source said.

- Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, said he had ordered ministers to prepare for any eventuality.

"I ordered them to make preparations so that we can react firmly, should any unexpected event occur," he said after an emergency cabinet meeting in Tokyo.

- Russia's foreign minister warned of a "colossal danger", and said those behind the attack carried a huge responsibility..."


So as you see, Trump's retalitory response is no more threatening than many other LEADERS', including those from a N.Korean ally.

It is imperative, now that l provided you an analysis on the linguistics of past presidents, that we keep it in context whilst discussing provocateur N. Korea, and their real threats of nuclear war against the U.S.A, Japan and South Korea.
Click to expand...
The lingo he used is different to the usual diplomatic "firm response" that for instance Obama used and Macron recently used. Firm and united response can mean a whole lot of things, sanctions for instance. I don't care what Putin and all the others say except you want us to put them on the same level now. I expect more morally from a POTUS than from Putin.
 
Madeleine said:
Isn't South Korea something like his hostage? He knows it'd be difficult for an American president to risk for South Korea to be wiped out, even if that meant North Korea is also wiped out.
Click to expand...
We know South Korea would be more exposed to the war. That does make us more reluctant to attack the north because SK is a modern country where people are living their lives. Exposing them to war would be dramatic, it would be like exposing the average American to war, but it won't be easy for them to burn SK by any means without using nukes.
 
Beasty said:
We know South Korea would be more exposed to the war. That does make us more reluctant to attack the north because SK is a modern country where people are living their lives. Exposing them to war would be dramatic, it would be like exposing the average American to war, but it won't be easy for them to burn SK by any means without using nukes.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with his level of craziness we don't know if he'd use nukes when under extreme pressure. And that's why making a move on NK could potentially lead to the wiping out of SK, in a worst case scenario.

Except if it's possible to sort of knock out his nuclear plants and arsenals first, so that option isn't there. That I don't know, because I'm not so deep into military stuff, but I imagine it to be difficult.
 
Madeleine said:
The lingo he used is different to the usual diplomatic "firm response" that for instance Obama used and Macron recently used. Firm and united response can mean a whole lot of things, sanctions for instance. I don't care what Putin and all the others say except you want us to put them on the same level now. I expect more morally from a POTUS than from Putin.
Click to expand...
Dotard acts as if him and Putin grew up playing in the same sand box while sharing toy trucks. It's hilarious really. How he can't see himself as a fool is incredible. Like what could his end game be really?
 
Madeleine said:
Yes, but with his level of craziness we don't know if he'd use nukes when under extreme pressure. And that's why making a move on NK could potentially lead to the wiping out of SK, in a worst case scenario.

Except if it's possible to sort of knock out his nuclear plants and arsenals first, so that option isn't there. That I don't know, because I'm not so deep into military stuff, but I imagine it to be difficult.
Click to expand...
That's why we are reluctant to move first. No one wants that on their hands, but if he moves first then what does he have to gain? We want him to move first because if he does China may not get involved. NK can't beat us and SK without China.
 
Beasty said:
Dotard acts as if him and Putin grew up playing in the same sand box while sharing toy trucks. It's hilarious really. How he can't see himself as a fool is incredible. Like what could his end game be really?
Click to expand...

Lol...either he doesn't understand what a tricky bastard Putin is or Putin has some compromising material on him. Either way he's making a fool of himself.
 
Beasty said:
That's why we are reluctant to move first. No one wants that on their hands, but if he moves first then what does he have to gain? We want him to move first because if he does China may not get involved. NK can't beat us and SK without China.
Click to expand...
That's why I said further up in my response to Bliss that China is key in this issue and someone must have explained that to him. That's why during his last Asia trip he was talking a little more sense than usual with China.
 
Madeleine said:
The lingo he used is different to the usual diplomatic "firm response" that for instance Obama used and Macron recently used. Firm and united response can mean a whole lot of things, sanctions for instance. I don't care what Putin and all the others say except you want us to put them on the same level now. I expect more morally from a POTUS than from Putin.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I think a big part of his crap is the fact that he's lived the life of a spoiled rich kid who has always gotten his way. That's why he routinely goes off the deep end anytime someone dares to buck back/question or disagree with him. It's one thing to act like this in your companies with your employees, but now he's truly playing in the big leagues and to assume Kim Jong-Un (or any state leader) will bow to his constant barking puts us all in danger.
 
Madeleine said:
That's why I said further up in my response to Bliss that China is key in this issue and someone must have explained that to him. That's why during his last Asia trip he was talking a little more sense than usual with China.
Click to expand...
Oh. I only read about 10% of her posts. Usually if its in a political thread I just skip past.
 
There was this documentary on German TV that shed light on Trumps Russia ties long before any presidential campaign. Russian mafia in the trump tower and more. Wish you guys could watch it, but it's in German.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom