• 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!

Trump Follows Instincts, Not Establishment, With Overtures to Kim and Duterte

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/world/asia/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un.html?_r=0

President Trump continued his outreach to rogue leaders on Monday, declaring he would meet North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, provided the circumstances were right, even as the Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, brushed aside the president’s invitation to visit the White House, saying he might be “too busy.”

Mr. Trump’s unorthodox overtures — to a nuclear-armed despot who brutally purged his rivals, and an insurgent politician accused of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects — illustrated the president’s confidence in his ability to make deals and his willingness to talk to virtually anyone.

Above all, they highlighted his penchant for flouting the norms of diplomacy, no matter his larger aim.

Is Trump a chump or is he playing with half a deck?

Seriously, people are wondering if we've elected a complete narcissistic kook. Why does he reach out to the worst in the world instead of our allies? Dirty Duterte who kills drug users and Kim who starves his people.
 
Conscientious that North Korea is our most immediate problem, that it is a huge problem, and that what we have been doing has not worked...like at all.

China is going to be a big problem, we need the Philippines back on our team.

Maybe a Trump is exactly the right tool for the job.
 
Last edited:
Conscientious that North Korea is our most immediate problem, that it is a huge problem, and that what we have been doing has not worked...like at all.

China is going to be a big problem, we need the Philippines back on our team.

Maybe a Trump is exactly the right tool for the job.

Trump is a tool alright. Best thing you've said about him yet!
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/world/asia/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un.html?_r=0



Is Trump a chump or is he playing with half a deck?

Seriously, people are wondering if we've elected a complete narcissistic kook. Why does he reach out to the worst in the world instead of our allies? Dirty Duterte who kills drug users and Kim who starves his people.
The Trump haters are now demanding we sever relations with the Phillipines, and continue with the same failed policies of the last 30 years when dealing with Korea. This 6 month meltdown by the Trump haters is still entertaining! Keep it up, I'm enjoying the show. And the best part is that you can always say "it's the Russians" when you get bored! Pure comedy gold!
 
The Trump haters are now demanding we sever relations with the Phillipines, and continue with the same failed policies of the last 30 years when dealing with Korea. This 6 month meltdown by the Trump haters is still entertaining! Keep it up, I'm enjoying the show. And the best part is that you can always say "it's the Russians" when you get bored! Pure comedy gold!

I agree we need relations with the Philippines but not Duerte. He's a complete thug and murderous jerk.
 
Trump is a tool alright. Best thing you've said about him yet!

:2wave:

You got it!

I was thinking of people like you, I knew it would be enjoyed....and me being a nice guy and all....
 
I agree we need relations with the Philippines but not Duerte. He's a complete thug and murderous jerk.

Don't like the guy in charge? Don't bother trying to work with them! A simple overthrowing of the legitimately elected and extremely popular leader can solve that pesky problem! m i rite? It's a tried and true method that always works and has never back-fired ever!
 
Don't like the guy in charge? Don't bother trying to work with them! A simple overthrowing of the legitimately elected and extremely popular leader can solve that pesky problem! m i rite? It's a tried and true method that always works and has never back-fired ever!

That's a corrupt method utilized by our spy agencies that I abhor. It's usually illegal and counter intuitive to our constitutional values.
 
I agree we need relations with the Philippines but not Duerte. He's a complete thug and murderous jerk.


So what are the alternatives. Ignore the Phillipines? Try to effect regime change--that has worked so effectively everywhere else we have tried it. . .NOT! Go to war with them? Or maybe the right tactic is to try to restore some form of conversation and diplomacy that might turn out better than expected.

Remembering that Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire':

. . .of all the foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Presidency, none is more important, or had more lasting impact on the world, than the fundamental change in U.S.-Soviet relations.

It was not due to luck or accident. Speaking of U.S.-Soviet relations and his steadfast determination to reduce arms, President Reagan would often say: “We don’t mistrust each other because we’re armed; we’re armed because we mistrust each other.” He believed that if the mistrust was eliminated, then so, too, could the dangerous, destabilizing weapons. President Reagan was confident that if he could just get his Soviet counterpart in a room and tell him face-to-face that America had no hostile intent, the mistrust would begin to evaporate.

Instinctively he knew that could not be accomplished through the traditional diplomacy of a bureaucratic State Department. So, to the horror of some long-time career government employees, he did what no President had ever done. While recovering from the assassination attempt in 1981, he handwrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in reply to Brezhnev’s rather belligerent letter sent less than six weeks after President Reagan’s assumption of office. In his reply, President Reagan sought to find common ground and to establish a better tone to relations between the White House and the Kremlin.

But as things turned out, the President would have to be patient. Brezhnev died in November 1982, and was replaced by Yuri Andropov. Less than 2 years later, Andropov died, and was succeeded by Constantin Chernenko. Incredibly, Chernenko died just 13 months later.

To replace him, the Soviet high command chose a younger leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev with whom President Reagan would finally have that long-sought opportunity to begin to form a new relationship, one that would lead to a lessening of tensions between Washington and Moscow, and eventually to meaningful arms reduction. . .​
https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/the-presidency/mikhail-gorbachev/

A poignant but in a way exhilarating moment in my memory was at President Reagan's funeral as I watched Mikhail Gorbachev, with tears in his eyes and on his cheek, paying his last respects to President Reagan at graveside.

We never know what can be accomplished unless we try.
 
So what are the alternatives. Ignore the Phillipines? Try to effect regime change--that has worked so effectively everywhere else we have tried it. . .NOT! Go to war with them? Or maybe the right tactic is to try to restore some form of conversation and diplomacy that might turn out better than expected.

Remembering that Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire':

. . .of all the foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Presidency, none is more important, or had more lasting impact on the world, than the fundamental change in U.S.-Soviet relations.

It was not due to luck or accident. Speaking of U.S.-Soviet relations and his steadfast determination to reduce arms, President Reagan would often say: “We don’t mistrust each other because we’re armed; we’re armed because we mistrust each other.” He believed that if the mistrust was eliminated, then so, too, could the dangerous, destabilizing weapons. President Reagan was confident that if he could just get his Soviet counterpart in a room and tell him face-to-face that America had no hostile intent, the mistrust would begin to evaporate.

Instinctively he knew that could not be accomplished through the traditional diplomacy of a bureaucratic State Department. So, to the horror of some long-time career government employees, he did what no President had ever done. While recovering from the assassination attempt in 1981, he handwrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in reply to Brezhnev’s rather belligerent letter sent less than six weeks after President Reagan’s assumption of office. In his reply, President Reagan sought to find common ground and to establish a better tone to relations between the White House and the Kremlin.

But as things turned out, the President would have to be patient. Brezhnev died in November 1982, and was replaced by Yuri Andropov. Less than 2 years later, Andropov died, and was succeeded by Constantin Chernenko. Incredibly, Chernenko died just 13 months later.

To replace him, the Soviet high command chose a younger leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev with whom President Reagan would finally have that long-sought opportunity to begin to form a new relationship, one that would lead to a lessening of tensions between Washington and Moscow, and eventually to meaningful arms reduction. . .​
https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/the-presidency/mikhail-gorbachev/

A poignant but in a way exhilarating moment in my memory was at President Reagan's funeral as I watched Mikhail Gorbachev, with tears in his eyes and on his cheek, paying his last respects to President Reagan at graveside.

We never know what can be accomplished unless we try.

I partially agree with the sentiment here of cooperation. But Gorbachev was an exceptional precipitant in the desire for peace, while Duerte is a simple minded thug. Reagan also dealt from a position of strength, which Trump seems to confuse with a position of an immature bully.
 
So what are the alternatives. Ignore the Phillipines? Try to effect regime change--that has worked so effectively everywhere else we have tried it. . .NOT! Go to war with them? Or maybe the right tactic is to try to restore some form of conversation and diplomacy that might turn out better than expected.

Remembering that Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire':

. . .of all the foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Presidency, none is more important, or had more lasting impact on the world, than the fundamental change in U.S.-Soviet relations.

It was not due to luck or accident. Speaking of U.S.-Soviet relations and his steadfast determination to reduce arms, President Reagan would often say: “We don’t mistrust each other because we’re armed; we’re armed because we mistrust each other.” He believed that if the mistrust was eliminated, then so, too, could the dangerous, destabilizing weapons. President Reagan was confident that if he could just get his Soviet counterpart in a room and tell him face-to-face that America had no hostile intent, the mistrust would begin to evaporate.

Instinctively he knew that could not be accomplished through the traditional diplomacy of a bureaucratic State Department. So, to the horror of some long-time career government employees, he did what no President had ever done. While recovering from the assassination attempt in 1981, he handwrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in reply to Brezhnev’s rather belligerent letter sent less than six weeks after President Reagan’s assumption of office. In his reply, President Reagan sought to find common ground and to establish a better tone to relations between the White House and the Kremlin.

But as things turned out, the President would have to be patient. Brezhnev died in November 1982, and was replaced by Yuri Andropov. Less than 2 years later, Andropov died, and was succeeded by Constantin Chernenko. Incredibly, Chernenko died just 13 months later.

To replace him, the Soviet high command chose a younger leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev with whom President Reagan would finally have that long-sought opportunity to begin to form a new relationship, one that would lead to a lessening of tensions between Washington and Moscow, and eventually to meaningful arms reduction. . .​
https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/the-presidency/mikhail-gorbachev/

A poignant but in a way exhilarating moment in my memory was at President Reagan's funeral as I watched Mikhail Gorbachev, with tears in his eyes and on his cheek, paying his last respects to President Reagan at graveside.

We never know what can be accomplished unless we try.

Good points. Ronald Reagan was an unusually persuasive man with great personal charm and wit, and he knew how to use his assets. As William Buckley once noted, Reagan was also one hell of a good debater. Gorbachev, as an intelligent, reasonable man, cannot help but have been impressed by Reagan after they had spent some time talking in person. And the world benefited from the increase in mutual trust and understanding between those two leaders.

This statement by President Trump, though, was ill-considered and unwise. This time, there is no intelligent, reasonable man on the other side, but rather a savage--an evil thug whose mental stability is doubtful. Driving home tonight, I found myself wondering how President Kennedy would have responded, if someone had suggested meeting in person with Nikita Khruschev during the Cuban Crisis. And as I pictured it, he would have said said something like this: "Under the current conditions, I don't think anything like that would be appropriate. This government has made its position very clear to the Soviet Union. Yes, next question--"

Sometimes talking in an attempt to be reasonable can be recklessly dangerous. The person you talk with may take what you believe is being a decent chap as nothing but proof your are a weak sister. Neville Chamberlain would have done much better never to have agreed to those meetings in 1938 with Hitler and Mussolini. He made it even worse by agreeing to travel to their back yard for the meetings. What Hitler saw from Chamberlain left him convinced that Britain was flabby, decadent, and afraid to fight, and being convinced of that, he was encouraged to start a full-scale war.
 
Last edited:
Good points. Ronald Reagan was an unusually persuasive man with great personal charm and wit, and he knew how to use his assets. As William Buckley once noted, Reagan was also one hell of a good debater. Gorbachev, as an intelligent, reasonable man, cannot help but have been impressed by Reagan after they had spent some time talking in person. And the world benefited from the increase in mutual trust and understanding between those two leaders.

This statement by President Trump, though, was ill-considered and unwise. This time, there is no intelligent, reasonable man on the other side, but rather a savage--an evil thug whose mental stability is doubtful. Driving home tonight, I found myself wondering how President Kennedy would have responded, if someone had suggested meeting in person with Nikita Khruschev during the Cuban Crisis. And as I pictured it, he would have said said something like this: "Under the current conditions, I don't think anything like that would be appropriate. This government has made its position very clear to the Soviet Union. Yes, next question--"

Sometimes talking in an attempt to be reasonable can be recklessly dangerous. The person you talk with may take what you believe is being a decent chap as nothing but proof your are a weak sister. Neville Chamberlain would have done much better never to have agreed to those meetings in 1938 with Hitler and Mussolini. He made it even worse by agreeing to travel to their back yard for the meetings. What Hitler saw from Chamberlain left him convinced that Britain was flabby, decadent, and afraid to fight, and being convinced of that, he was encouraged to start a full-scale war.

Maybe. I'll think about that. But in my gut, I can't imagine anybody who spends any time with Donald Trump seeing him as flabby, decadent, or afraid to fight.
 
I partially agree with the sentiment here of cooperation. But Gorbachev was an exceptional precipitant in the desire for peace, while Duerte is a simple minded thug. Reagan also dealt from a position of strength, which Trump seems to confuse with a position of an immature bully.

And despite all the politically incorrect bluster and boasting and hyperbole that Duterte engaged in playing to the crowd--he really made Trump look like a prudish Sunday School teacher in comparison--he offered the Philippinos an alternative to the progressive and self-serving leadership that has held the Phillipines back as an economic third world country that produces abject poverty while benefiting the self-serving elite.

Will he deliver? Was all that profane and vulgar rhetoric for real or just to convince the people he was different? I think it might be too early to tell. But his war on the drug lords in that country, despite the massive body count, has left him with an approval ratings with the people in the high 80's. They are forgiving the occasional mistake that they acknowledge is inevitable given the massive devastation those drug lords have imposed on that small country.

See this on how he got elected by a landslide:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...igo-duterte-urges-people-to-kill-drug-addicts

And how he was doing by January 2017
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphj...e-as-a-guardian-of-human-rights/#699c89632043

So is he the monster as the leftwing media in the USA paints him? Or is he sincere on wiping out the drug industry in the Philippines as he promised and is using the only effective method there is to do that? Human rights analysis certainly won't come down on his side. But given the ravaging effect the drugs have had on the people of the Philippines, they seem willing to accept the solution Duterte offers.

At any rate, I personally don't have a problem with Trump meeting with Duterte. Certainly it won't make things worse for the Philippines and who knows? Maybe it will make things better. I do trust our President to not be easily taken in by empty promises or shallow flattery, and I don't think he'll make any deals that are not in our best interest.
 
I partially agree with the sentiment here of cooperation. But Gorbachev was an exceptional precipitant in the desire for peace, while Duerte is a simple minded thug. Reagan also dealt from a position of strength, which Trump seems to confuse with a position of an immature bully.

Desire for peace maybe. I don't see Duterte as any more eager to go to war than Gorbachev was. Gorbachev was more of a statesman in how most Americans would define that, but he was certainly no angel. He did make a few overtures to show himself to be reasonable, but under his authority, human rights in Russia did not improve and in some respects even got worse.

Soviet Human Rights Under Gorbachev | The Heritage Foundation

We had no idea what could be accomplished in a meeting of Reagan and Gorbachev, but Reagan took the risk amidst heavy criticism for initiating talks with Gorbachev and his predecessors. I recall a Rolling Stone article criticizing Reagan for flubbing the first meeting at Reykjavik and there was also other criticism, mostly from the left. And remember Reagan at the time had much higher approval ratings that President Trump does.

Of course there is no comparison between that and meeting with Duterte because I am pretty sure the Philippines and the USA don't have nuclear war heads aimed at each other. But isn't it worth a try to see if things can't be improved?
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/world/asia/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un.html?_r=0



Is Trump a chump or is he playing with half a deck?

Seriously, people are wondering if we've elected a complete narcissistic kook. Why does he reach out to the worst in the world instead of our allies? Dirty Duterte who kills drug users and Kim who starves his people.

He's actually playing with a different deck of cards. The previous deck that Presidents used was marked, the Presidents were crooked card sharks and the only people who got what they wanted were the money men.

That ends now.
 
So is he the monster as the leftwing media in the USA paints him? Or is he sincere on wiping out the drug industry in the Philippines as he promised and is using the only effective method there is to do that?
Do you imagine Duterte's death squad in Davao confined itself to exclusively executing only drug dealers? Duterte said all criminals will be dealt with ... ergo dozens of homeless street children were also executed.

Dictator who ordered the death of children just turned down Trump’s invitation to White House
 
Back
Top Bottom