IDBillzFan Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Those people who think Trump met Kim without any preconditions are lacking the ability to think. There have been a ton of meetings and as our very own DR has pointed out ad nauseam that this outcome (at least up to this point) was preordained. I think the point here is that Obama would have met with Kim under similar conditions. If you bitched about Obama doing this unilaterally, you should B word about Trump doing it. I want to be clear: it's not a question of whether the meeting is right or wrong. It's about being honest with yourself when you critique someone. That Fox News clip is the perfect summation of the right back then. The left is notorious for its hypocrisy. The right needs to be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 not sure what to think about all this, seems good, hope it works i don't have any insider knowledge by security clearance or pulling it out my rear end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: I think the point here is that Obama would have met with Kim under similar conditions. I agree with the sentiment of your post, so I'm not arguing that. But the media trying to make the above point are full of it. Obama had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in DPRK, he never wanted to do anything about them and never would have sat down with them under similar conditions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 This NK thing has a long way to go before it can be called a success, but Trump has taken the opening kickoff and driven the team into the end zone. Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: I think the point here is that Obama would have met with Kim under similar conditions. If you bitched about Obama doing this unilaterally, you should B word about Trump doing it. I want to be clear: it's not a question of whether the meeting is right or wrong. It's about being honest with yourself when you critique someone. That Fox News clip is the perfect summation of the right back then. The left is notorious for its hypocrisy. The right needs to be better. I would not have wanted Obama to meet with Kim because Obama was weak and incompetent and would have no doubt made a bad deal. Just look at the Iran deal. I have no problem with Trump meeting with Kim because Trump is not weak and is competent in negotiating deals. I see no hypocrisy in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 23 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: I think the point here is that Obama would have met with Kim under similar conditions. I don't know if I would agree with this. Obama could have set similar conditions, but didn't. According to Rodman (take it for what it's worth), Kim wanted to meet with Obama, and Obama ignored the request. Obama's policy of "strategic patience" wasn't meant to fix the problem; it was to ignore the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Buddy Hix said: Trump gave up the exercises for nothing...a concession. For nothing? Showing NK we are serious by agreeing to halt training exercises we've conducted twice a year for many years as a gesture to keep negotiations moving forward? If NK balks as in the past is it really so difficult to reauthorize training exercises? Have we significantly compromised our negotiating strength by doing it? I don't see how. Kim asked for this meeting and offered denuclearization up front. I see Trump's offer as mostly symbolic, but effective given NK's offense at these exercises in the past. Great concession! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Jim Acosta caught on a hot mic defending his "questions". Starts at 2:41:00 "Hey, if they're not going to let me in the !@#$ing meeting then that's what happens." He has to lose his credentials. The moment isn't about Jim. It's not about Trump. It's not even about Kim. But dammit, Acosta is going to make sure it's about him in the end because he's an asshat, not a journalist. What a terrible look. He absolutely needs to be uncredentialed. In fact, the entirety of CNN should have them revoked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I would not have wanted Obama to meet with Kim because Obama was weak and incompetent and would have no doubt made a bad deal. Just look at the Iran deal. I have no problem with Trump meeting with Kim because Trump is not weak and is competent in negotiating deals. I see no hypocrisy in that. Obama was by far the worst President this country has ever seen. Because he is black and the first black President, he gets a free pass. The left and the MSM (who were comatose during the Obama years) can’t stand the fact that Trump is taking a dump on Obama’s “so-called” legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 3 hours ago, baskin said: Trump hasn't done anything different than the Bushes, Clinton and Obama - NK has pledged before to come correct...and ultimately didn't....maybe this sounds different....maybe this will turn out different...who knows.....based on Trump as POTUS record of accomplishing anything substantive... AFA keeping troops...you do realize that NK has troops on the border as well as weapons directed at SK? You do know that there exists a formal war declaration? You do know that the troops represent an important military presence in the South Pacific....keeping NK and China in check.....you do know that our friends SK and Japan want them there right?.....of course you knew all that.... lol...you got nothing dude....absolutely nothing I'm curious: If either of the Bushes, or Clinton or Obama had held this summit in Singapore and gotten the same document signed by Kim, would you have a different reaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, snafu said: I'm curious: If either of the Bushes, or Clinton or Obama had held this summit in Singapore and gotten the same document signed by Kim, would you have a different reaction? Not to speak for him, but pretty sure the answer's: no^2, yes, hell yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 13 minutes ago, snafu said: I'm curious: If either of the Bushes, or Clinton or Obama had held this summit in Singapore and gotten the same document signed by Kim, would you have a different reaction? Strategic error on your part. The only time to ask baskin a question is if you want him to disappear. He'll reappear under the Tibs username, but he generally doesn't respond to questions, and when he does, it sounds a lot like Vinny Barbarino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 53 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I don't know if I would agree with this. Obama could have set similar conditions, He even could have set a "red line"... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: He even could have set a "red line"... He was great at speechifying. Not so good at policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: He was great at speechifying. Not so good at policy. But he had a phone and a pen! I guess so he could...write speeches and phone it in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: But he had a phone and a pen! I guess so he could...write speeches and phone it in? Are we doing the cheese and macaroni thing again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Are we doing the cheese and macaroni thing again? Afterwards a little Jerry's & Ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Afterwards a little Jerry's & Ben. I prefer Dazs Haagen, myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I prefer Dazs Haagen, myself... Washed down with Cola Coca? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Washed down with Cola Coca? Beer Root, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Washed down with Cola Coca? Of course. You think I'd drink Dew Mountain or Mist Sierra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Beer Root, you idiot. Float Coke is something from heaven you simp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: Float Coke is something from heaven you simp! Don't use it that often, I hear it's habit forming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 The last eight posts, if you read them in a Yoda voice, make a lot more sense, they do. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: I have no problem with Trump meeting with Kim because Trump is not weak and is competent in negotiating deals. I see no hypocrisy in that. to be seen no? Has Trump negotiated anything yet? And a deal to secure financing on a property or structure a bankruptcy is not the same as negotiating a trade agreement or any other kind of agreement on a national level. This agreement so far is a starting point, we have been there before with this country..now let's see him follow on with open verifications, including military sights..an agreement that does not end after ten years etc..in other words includes all the things he said were not included in the Iran deal. We sure as hell ain't there yet Edited June 12, 2018 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: to be seen no? Has Trump negotiated anything yet? And a deal to secure financing on a property or structure a bankruptcy is not the same as negotiating a trade agreement or any other kind of agreement on a national level. This agreement so far is a starting point, we have been there before with this country..now let's see him follow on with open verifications, including military sights..an agreement that does not end after ten years etc..in other words includes all the things he said were not included in the Iran deal. We sure as hell ain't there yet it was much better with BO holding his rear and begging for mercy and apologizing and sending pallets of millions of US dollars p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: to be seen no? Has Trump negotiated anything yet? And a deal to secure financing on a property or structure a bankruptcy is not the same as negotiating a trade agreement or any other kind of agreement on a national level. This agreement so far is a starting point, we have been there before with this country..now let's see him follow on with open verifications, including military sights..an agreement that does not end after ten years etc..in other words includes all the things he said were not included in the Iran deal. We sure as hell ain't there yet You're not wrong in principle. However, and it's just MO, don't mistake public progress for total progress. This deal is much farther along than it appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: it was much better with BO holding his rear and begging for mercy and apologizing and sending pallets of millions of US dollars p why does everything revert to how/what Barack Obama did? We are talking about Trump no? Is that really hard for you all to understand? Is the goal to gain peace with North Korea or prove BO to be a bad president. Yall accuse the other side of only wanted to batter Trump, all you want to do is bash BO. Have some chops and and answer with some real facts , not just hate mongering on a past president Tell me one international deal Trump has negotiated on behalf of the USA and why it has benefitted the US? And pulling out of TPP and the Paris accords is not negotiating a deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: to be seen no? Has Trump negotiated anything yet? And a deal to secure financing on a property or structure a bankruptcy is not the same as negotiating a trade agreement or any other kind of agreement on a national level. This agreement so far is a starting point, we have been there before with this country..not let's see him follow on with open verifications, including military sights..an agreement that does not end after ten years etc..in other words includes all the things he said were not included in the Iran deal. We sure as hell ain't there yet Ha! Besides knowing how to negotiate, Trump has the one card that Obama never had, but is necessary in any successful negotiation. He is willing to walk away if he doesn't get his deal. Obama got a lousy deal in Iran because he wasn't willing to walk away. He had to have that deal for his "legacy". Trump will either get his deal or he'll walk away and impose even more sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) Rodman must be pissing off the left. His relationship with Kim essentially takes the race card off the table for libs to use as a reason Obama made no progress on NK. 8 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: why does everything revert to how/what Barack Obama did? We are talking about Trump no? Is that really hard for you all to understand? Is the goal to gain peace with North Korea or prove BO to be a bad president. Yall accuse the other side of only wanted to batter Trump, all you want to do is bash BO. Have some chops and and answer with some real facts , not just hate mongering on a past president Tell me one international deal Trump has negotiated on behalf of the USA and why it has benefitted the US? And pulling out of TPP and the Paris accords is not negotiating a deal You're going to see concessions with trading partners on tariffs before he's done. Edited June 12, 2018 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Ha! Besides knowing how to negotiate, Trump has the one card that Obama never had, but is necessary in any successful negotiation. He is willing to walk away if he doesn't get his deal. Obama got a lousy deal in Iran because he wasn't willing to walk away. He had to have that deal for his "legacy". Trump will either get his deal or he'll walk away and impose even more sanctions. and that would be great if he is able to get that deal...it sure as hell is not what we have now..right now we have a "yep, thats our plan" from North Korea...which they have said in 3 different agreements since 1992. If there is some promise, timeframe, verification plan I am missing, please point them out to me so i am better informed. And i am hoping and praying he gets it...and for Gods sake tell me what this has to do with Barack Obama? Is that all you care about..or do you care about peace moving forward? Would you like Trump to make a bad deal if it made Obama look bad? Same thing you accuse the other side of doing. Again, negotiating a trade deal/ international treaty is now where near the same as negotiating a refinancing on a property or using a likeness on a doll. I am not saying he cant't/won't negotiate a good deal, but in 500 days we have exactly ZERO evidence that says he will be good at it...he has negotiated ZERO deals. If i am missing it..tell me what deal is out there and why it was good for the USA...thats all I ask. Edited June 12, 2018 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: why does everything revert to how/what Barack Obama did? We are talking about Trump no? Is that really hard for you all to understand? Is the goal to gain peace with North Korea or prove BO to be a bad president. Yall accuse the other side of only wanted to batter Trump, all you want to do is bash BO. Have some chops and and answer with some real facts , not just hate mongering on a past president Tell me one international deal Trump has negotiated on behalf of the USA and why it has benefitted the US? And pulling out of TPP and the Paris accords is not negotiating a deal I was accused of hypocrisy and I explained why it wasn't hypocrisy. I used the personal differences between Obama and Trump to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Tell me one international deal Trump has negotiated on behalf of the USA and why it has benefitted the US? He literally just signed a pledge to completely denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and to end the Korean War - prior to getting three hostages back (for nothing). The benefits are evident. The world today is safer than the world was yesterday just by nature of the meeting. Don't forget, it was just a few weeks ago that people were standing on their chairs screaming we were headed to nuclear war with the DPRK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Just now, 3rdnlng said: I was accused of hypocrisy and I explained why it wasn't hypocrisy. I used the personal differences between Obama and Trump to prove it. huh??? Wow, maybe I am missing something. So you say Obama is weak, Trump is strong...therefore Trump makes a great deal ...and yet cannot point to one deal Trump has done on the international stage....and that is somehow proof of exacrtly what???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: If i am missing it..tell me what deal is out there and why it was good for the USA...thats all I ask. You're asking this while ignoring completely what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday has never happened before. No US leader has ever had one on one talks, directly with the DPRK. No DPRK leader has ever signed a joint deal like this before. It's completely uncharted and historic water. Yes, it's not a finish line (publicly), but it's also not nothing. It's an international deal, brought together by working with numerous allies and adversaries (China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, et al). It took finesse, talent, and negotiating to get all those parties to agree to support this deal in the first place - let alone what it took to get Kim to the table. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're asking this while ignoring completely what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday has never happened before. No US leader has ever had one on one talks, directly with the DPRK. No DPRK leader has ever signed a joint deal like this before. It's completely uncharted and historic water. Yes, it's not a finish line (publicly), but it's also not nothing. It's an international deal, brought together by working with numerous allies and adversaries (China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, et al). It took finesse, talent, and negotiating to get all those parties to agree to support this deal in the first place - let alone what it took to get Kim to the table. Not to quibble, but how is this different at this point than the deals his father agreed to with Clinton & Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He literally just signed a pledge to completely denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and to end the Korean War - prior to getting three hostages back (for nothing). The benefits are evident. The world today is safer than the world was yesterday just by nature of the meeting. Don't forget, it was just a few weeks ago that people were standing on their chairs screaming we were headed to nuclear war with the DPRK. asI have mentioned, I think it a great first step. And has mentioned, they have pledged to denuclearize 3 times before..never following through on the agreement. I too think this time may be different..and I am hoping it is. But what was signed today was no different than what was signed in 92, or 2005. I agree the world is safer based on these meetings..and I am THRILLED about that. But I think most need to some teeth moving forward..get the deal with NK he says he should have had with Iran...then I will sing to the mountaintops what a great deal/negotiator Trump is..but I ain't doing it off a pledge. And IF BO had come back with this same agreement and swore we were entering a new age cause Kim pledged he would give up his nukes, but there was no verification attached, no timetable attached, no concrete plans other than " I trust him"...truly what do you think your response would have been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: and that would be great if he is able to get that deal...it sure as hell is not what we have now..right now we have a "yep, thats our plan" from North Korea...which they have said in 3 different agreements since 1992. If there is some promise, timeframe, verification plan I am missing, please point them out to me so i am better informed. And i am hoping and praying he gets it...and for Gods sake tell me what this has to do with Barack Obama? Is that all you care about..or do you care about peace moving forward? Would you like Trump to make a bad deal if it made Obama look bad? Same thing you accuse the other side of doing. Again, negotiating a trade deal/ international treaty is now where near the same as negotiating a refinancing on a property or using a likeness on a doll. I am not saying he cant't/won't negotiate a good deal, but in 500 days we have exactly ZERO evidence that says he will be good at it...he has negotiated ZERO deals. I've spent decades negotiating deals. While none of them have been international peace or trade deals the basics of negotiating are the same. People laughed at Trump for saying it was about attitude. Let me tell you, it is about attitude. It's also about positioning and preparation. We don't know what has transpired or what will transpire but I do know that Trump will not accept a bad deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Just now, GG said: Not to quibble, but how is this different at this point than the deals his father agreed to with Clinton & Bush? The main difference is how the deal was done - one on one talks for months between Trump and Kim - and the fact this deal is farther along than what we see today - but I'll leave that aside because it's not verifiable in open source. I'll say the differences are: what was given up and was offered in exchange for the pledge (POWs return is new, as is a pledge to end the Korean War), the sanctions levels leading to the deal are more powerful than either of those administrations, plus the participation of China and Russia in a meaningful way means the deal has more teeth than either of the others, and finally who was in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts