• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump wants one-on-one, not multiparty talks with Kim Jong-un ...

Carleen said:
Hey, if this happened during Trump’s presidency it would be wonderful. I think he is not experienced enough to make it happen. He is trying to negotiate on a level that is beyond what he knows because he does not spend time on learning about past attempts and what happened. His “I alone can fix it” is not a strategy.
Click to expand...
An Obama's level of experience was . . .? Oh, never mind, he FUBARed just about every international effort he got involved.
 
iguanaman said:
All previous Presidents have refused to give N. Korea's leaders the recognition of a visit because of their human rights offenses. Since Trump does not care about human rights he had no reason not to kiss up to the worlds worst violator. He also was ordered by Putin to give Kim cover to advance his nuclear missile program and give China a good reason to lift its sanctions. Trump can check both of those boxes.
Click to expand...
Pure bull****. Thanks for playing. :roll:
 
Bullseye said:
I'm not. We enact international AGREEMENTS frequently where the heads of state don't get involved; we send trade missions to various countries frequently.


Not interested in playing further word games with you. Don't expect further responses.
Click to expand...
Then why did you say:
Bullseye said:
Bull****. Face to face meetings of heads of state is an important step in any diplomatic process.
Click to expand...
First you say leaders meet for any diplomatic process and then you say they frequently don't
 
JustHanging said:
I don't know about that. Pretty hard to be worse than Donald "The Incestuous Dad" Trump.



But the main thing is, America is keeping the world in fits of laughter. Thank you!

And you're worried about immigrants? Damn, you need get a big ol' mirror and look into it. Immigrants are only going to help. Sure, there will be odd child molester in there, but over all your kids will be much safer with more immigration.
Click to expand...
That's a common intellectually dishonest librul tactic on the illegal immigration issue....lumping illegal immigrants in with legal immigrants as if there is no difference whatever. Legal immigrants are fine. As for the term incest, I suggest that you learn what it means. Joking about it or having a daughter sit on your lap is not an act of incest. And yes, sniffing young women and little girls hair, kissing them, and feeling them up is much worse. That will continue to haunt creepy Joe. I suspect that his primary opponents in the Democrat party will make it an issue.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Manc Skipper said:
China wouldn't mind you nuking their border I'm sure, and as for Seoul being only 40 miles away to the South, then the 10 million South Koreans who live there probably wouldn't care about a few radiation burns either...
Click to expand...
My point is that it is laughable for anyone to suggest that possessing rudimentary nukes makes North Korea less likely to be invaded.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
Actually Trump compounded their failures and brought the term to a new high. His "love" for Kim is quite disgusting. An American President who professes love of a brutal dictator must be distressing for all the oppressed people of the world.
Click to expand...
That is a laughingly partisan view. As for Trimp saying nice things about the insane fat boy in North Korea, I really don't give a ****. He is maintaining strangling sanctions on the regime, worse then anything they have ever had to deal with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
So when Kim nukes Seoul and kills 2.5 million Koreans our invasion will be declared a success?
Click to expand...
From that question, can I assume that you agree that we cannot trust the North Korean regime with nukes?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Bullseye said:
An Obama's level of experience was . . .? Oh, never mind, he FUBARed just about every international effort he got involved.
Click to expand...

Stop with the deflection. No president has been successful so far. Read the first line of my post.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My point is that it is laughable for anyone to suggest that possessing rudimentary nukes makes North Korea less likely to be invaded.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


It's an extra factor to be taken into account, therefore it makes attack less likely. Elementary.
 
ObamacareFail said:
My point is that it is laughable for anyone to suggest that possessing rudimentary nukes makes North Korea less likely to be invaded.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of "Blue Peacock" or "W-9"?

PS - Is using nuclear weapons to defeat a country that is invading your country "aggression" or "defence"?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Joking about it or having a daughter sit on your lap is not an act of incest.
Click to expand...

OK, sorry I guess it's just cultural difference. Here in Canada we don't go around joking about having sex with our children. I guess where you live this is normal behavior for you and your friends, so I'll try to remember that in the future. I had heard about it before, but never thought it was true. Learn something new every day.

EDIT: Where do you live? I'm curious to learn where joking about having sex with your children is acceptable behavior. Does this apply to joking about having sex with both your male children and female children? Or is it pretty well always just about your female children?
 
Last edited:
Born Free said:
Yeah your old dumbass Bill Clinton, gave NK billions and we got NOTHING IN RETURN. What a idiot.
Click to expand...

He isn't my Clinton. I voted for Perot. Would I prefer him to the orange fool, though? **** yes. I'd prefer a tree stump.
 
Carleen said:
Stop with the deflection. No president has been successful so far. Read the first line of my post.
Click to expand...
How is pointing out your comment about Trump lacking diplomatic experience also applied to his predecessor "deflection"? And, yes, I know no president has succeed yet. Should we quit? Trump has acknowledged he might not succeed from the beginning, I said the same thing above. Trump was the first to meet face to face with NK leader. For the first time leaders of NK and SK met at the border and walked into each other's country. Kim got a little miffed when Trump walked out so he went home and popped off a missile.
 
ObamacareFail said:
From that question, can I assume that you agree that we cannot trust the North Korean regime with nukes?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, it means we cannot invade them without the danger of them using their nukes. We will be the cause of it if we do.
 
ObamacareFail said:
That is a laughingly partisan view. As for Trimp saying nice things about the insane fat boy in North Korea, I really don't give a ****. He is maintaining strangling sanctions on the regime, worse then anything they have ever had to deal with.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't give a **** when our President profess love for a brutal mass murderer? That says a lot about you. BTW Trump's meeting with Kim was also China's excuse for their lifting their sanctions on N. Korea and also prompted them to petition the U.N. for sanctions relief. Do you agree with China that Trumps meeting was proof that Kim does not deserve to be sanctioned?

China wants UN Security Council to lift sanctions on North Korea

China-North Korea border trade thrives again, despite sanctions -
Nikkei Asian Review
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's an extra factor to be taken into account, therefore it makes attack less likely. Elementary.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It makes NK more of a threat the further they develop nukes. Makes for an unacceptable risk which is why four Us presidents have tried to head it off.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
ObamacareFail said:
Wrong. It makes NK more of a threat the further they develop nukes. Makes for an unacceptable risk which is why four Us presidents have tried to head it off.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


What level of nuke is not a threat? I'm interested to learn where your threshold to prevent invasion is.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Have you ever heard of "Blue Peacock" or "W-9"?

PS - Is using nuclear weapons to defeat a country that is invading your country "aggression" or "defence"?
Click to expand...
On your PS.....which country is invading North Korea?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
JustHanging said:
OK, sorry I guess it's just cultural difference. Here in Canada we don't go around joking about having sex with our children. I guess where you live this is normal behavior for you and your friends, so I'll try to remember that in the future. I had heard about it before, but never thought it was true. Learn something new every day.

EDIT: Where do you live? I'm curious to learn where joking about having sex with your children is acceptable behavior. Does this apply to joking about having sex with both your male children and female children? Or is it pretty well always just about your female children?
Click to expand...
However he did not joke about having sex with his daughter. The joke as I recall was crude, but just somewhere along the line of: "If she was not my daughter I might be dating her."

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
No, it means we cannot invade them without the danger of them using their nukes. We will be the cause of it if we do.
Click to expand...
That's why we are using sanctions. Invasion would be a last resort. However if we were going to invade, NK is at more risk with nukes then without them. Without them it would be a conventional war. With them, it would be total destruction of N.K.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
You don't give a **** when our President profess love for a brutal mass murderer? That says a lot about you. BTW Trump's meeting with Kim was also China's excuse for their lifting their sanctions on N. Korea and also prompted them to petition the U.N. for sanctions relief. Do you agree with China that Trumps meeting was proof that Kim does not deserve to be sanctioned?

China wants UN Security Council to lift sanctions on North Korea

China-North Korea border trade thrives again, despite sanctions -
Nikkei Asian Review
Click to expand...
Your penchant for gross exaggeration is amusing, however I cannot take you seriously.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
You don't give a **** when our President profess love for a brutal mass murderer? That says a lot about you. BTW Trump's meeting with Kim was also China's excuse for their lifting their sanctions on N. Korea and also prompted them to petition the U.N. for sanctions relief. Do you agree with China that Trumps meeting was proof that Kim does not deserve to be sanctioned?

China wants UN Security Council to lift sanctions on North Korea

China-North Korea border trade thrives again, despite sanctions -
Nikkei Asian Review
Click to expand...
Your selective outrage says alot more about you. You were not bothered when Obama told the Russian ambassador to tell Putin that he could be alot more flexible on missile deployments after re-election. You were not bothered by the nice things Obama said about the now deceased Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez or his love fest for the Muslim brotherhood. As for Trump, no, I am not concerned with rhetoric. I care more about actions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom