• 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 cancels Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un[W:193]

Chomsky said:
Well Trump got his $500M for his branded property, so it's not like 'no' American won.

1] Trump won
2] China won
3] NK won
4] U.S. lost

Three out of four ain't so bad, is it?
Click to expand...

How much of that $500M did Trump pocket?
 
Chomsky said:
Without his tax returns, we'll never know. But it will be more than you or I ever see in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

It was a loan. You really don't need his tax returns. That's just a talking point.
 
American said:
Yeah, I'm holding you up. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh, good lord. Not you.

‘People like you’.

There’s a pretty substantial difference.


I’m talking about people who literally dont care about corruption and graft, as long as its ‘their team’ who is doing it, or at least hiding it well enough so ‘people like you’ can pretend not to face it. Like, dismiss it as a loan.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, good lord. Not you.

‘People like you’.

There’s a pretty substantial difference.


I’m talking about people who literally dont care about corruption and graft, as long as its ‘their team’ who is doing it, or at least hiding it well enough so ‘people like you’ can pretend not to face it. Like, dismiss it as a loan.
Click to expand...
You don't care about corruption except Trump.
 
American said:
How much of that $500M did Trump pocket?
Click to expand...

A line that reminds me of the old joke where the punch line is "We've already settled that question, what we are doing now is haggling over price.".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
A line that reminds me of the old joke where the punch line is "We've already settled that question, what we are doing now is haggling over price.".
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question.
 
American said:
It was a loan. You really don't need his tax returns. That's just a talking point.
Click to expand...

If A uses their official government position in order to assist in arranging a "loan" from B for C so that C can build something for which C is going to be paying A money forever, does the loan from B to C "benefit" A?

If it is illegal for A to use their official government position in order to obtain a personal benefit, does the fact that none of the money involved in the loan from B to C was paid to A?

If A uses their official government position to assist in arranging a loan from B to C so that C can build something that C will not be required to pay A anything on account of BUT IF what C built increases the value of something that A already owned, does the loan from B to C "benefit" A?

If it is illegal for A to use their official government position in order to obtain a personal benefit, does the fact that neither any of the money involved in the loan from B to C was paid to A nor is C going to be making any direct payment to A?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, good lord. Not you.

‘People like you’.

There’s a pretty substantial difference.


I’m talking about people who literally dont care about corruption and graft, as long as its ‘their team’ who is doing it, or at least hiding it well enough so ‘people like you’ can pretend not to face it. Like, dismiss it as a loan.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at the career of Jean Chretien (a former Canadian Prime Minister). Mr. Chretien was successful in

  1. balancing Canada's budget;
  2. reducing Canada's national debt;
  3. lowering taxes (for all Canadians);
  4. increasing the level of governmental services provided to Canadians; AND
  5. maintaining Canada's traditional levels of graft and corruption.

Now ask yourself - "Has Mr. Trump

  1. balanced America's budget;
  2. reduced America's national debt;
  3. lowered taxes (for all Americans);
  4. increased the level of governmental services provided to Americans; or
  5. maintained America's traditional levels of graft and corruption?

It looks like the answer to all five points is "No." (with the caveat that "increased" does not mean the same thing as "maintained").
 
American said:
How much of that $500M did Trump pocket?
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen..... of course, what else remains to be seen are Trump's tax returns. He could have saved us all a lot problems if we had just seen them before the election.

TU Curmudgeon said:
If A uses their official government position in order to assist in arranging a "loan" from B for C so that C can build something for which C is going to be paying A money forever, does the loan from B to C "benefit" A?

If it is illegal for A to use their official government position in order to obtain a personal benefit, does the fact that none of the money involved in the loan from B to C was paid to A?

If A uses their official government position to assist in arranging a loan from B to C so that C can build something that C will not be required to pay A anything on account of BUT IF what C built increases the value of something that A already owned, does the loan from B to C "benefit" A?

If it is illegal for A to use their official government position in order to obtain a personal benefit, does the fact that neither any of the money involved in the loan from B to C was paid to A nor is C going to be making any direct payment to A?
Click to expand...

To quote Sarah Palin, "You betcha!". As measure, what are the consequences to A if B does not loan to C?

A is a beneficial party of B's actions and at risk if B does not act. Sorry "A" received a benefit from B's actions and was likely "at risk" if B did not act. If A needed B to act, it is as if B paid A.
 
Last edited:
Much is made of this 'faux pas' of recommending a "Libyan solution" to the proposed North Korean denuclearization. For the critical left this means peacefully dismantling North Korea's nuclear arsenal and then taking out Kim as was done with Khadaffy, which naturally would be rejected by Kim. I'm not so sure that is what was being suggested by the NSA. The Libyan denuclearization featured well-verified steps to disarmament, they didn't actually have any nukes, the objectionable equipment and material was properly documented, secured and removed to third countries where it was verifiably destroyed. This is what the NSA means by the following the Libyan model. Kim shouldn't be concerned he will end up hunted in the streets of his ruined capital after the US bombs the place once they've taken his nukes because Trump already promised him they won't come after him if he denukes.
 
American said:
You haven't answered the question.
Click to expand...

The answer is very easy "So far there is no evidence that any of the $500,000,000 was paid directly to Donald J Trump.".

Unfortunately that does not answer the questions:

Was any of the $500,000,000 paid to Mr. Trump?

of

Did Mr. Trump derive any personal benefit out of the loan?
​

We will never know if any of the $500,000,000 was paid to Mr. Trump because of how easy it is to launder money.

We will never know if Mr. Trump derived any personal benefit out of the loan because the license fees for using his name are not paid directly to him and once those license fees are mingled with money from other sources it is impossible to differentiate them again. I am sure that you would be more than willing to agree that "Just because X resulted in Y increasing its profits by Z and shortly thereafter the owner of Y received an increase in income of Z." doesn't actually prove that X resulted in the owner of Y receiving an increase in income of Z.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Much is made of this 'faux pas' of recommending a "Libyan solution" to the proposed North Korean denuclearization. ... Kim shouldn't be concerned he will end up hunted in the streets of his ruined capital after the US bombs the place once they've taken his nukes because Trump already promised him they won't come after him if he denukes.
Click to expand...

Considering that the US government has a lengthy history of "encouraging" groups in foreign countries to "remove" leaders of those countries when those leaders are no longer useful to the US government, Mr. Kim shouldn't be overly confident that that isn't exactly what will happen either - especially if the US government is not prepared to guarantee territorial and governmental security for the DPRK as a part of a multinational agreement which calls on ALL parties to defend the territory and government of the DPRK against ANY attack.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Much is made of this 'faux pas' of recommending a "Libyan solution" to the proposed North Korean denuclearization. For the critical left this means peacefully dismantling North Korea's nuclear arsenal and then taking out Kim as was done with Khadaffy, which naturally would be rejected by Kim. I'm not so sure that is what was being suggested by the NSA. The Libyan denuclearization featured well-verified steps to disarmament, they didn't actually have any nukes, the objectionable equipment and material was properly documented, secured and removed to third countries where it was verifiably destroyed. This is what the NSA means by the following the Libyan model. Kim shouldn't be concerned he will end up hunted in the streets of his ruined capital after the US bombs the place once they've taken his nukes because Trump already promised him they won't come after him if he denukes.
Click to expand...

It has not a thing to do with the "critical left". That's what happened. That's just plain history. And let's stop with the "NSA" says this or "NSA" says that. It's John Bolton who is the one saying it. John Bolton was a very loud advocate for regime change in North Korea before he became Trump's National Security Director. I posted on here at time he said that the US would look to base it's denuclearization plan for North Korea upon the "Libyan model", that he probably did so to sabotage Trumps proposed summit with Un. Because he knew that this was something that would upset North Korea because Un knows damn well what happened to Gadaffi shortly after he gave up his nuclear weapons program
 
Donald Trump says North Korea summit could be back on


Donald Trump has suggested his summit with Kim Jong-un could still go on as planned, marking yet another dramatic reversal for the US president who just a day earlier canceled the meeting in a letter to the North Korean leader.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday, adding that his administration was in talks with Pyongyang and the summit was still possible on its originally scheduled date of 12 June.
Click to expand...
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The answer is very easy "So far there is no evidence that any of the $500,000,000 was paid directly to Donald J Trump.".

Unfortunately that does not answer the questions:

Was any of the $500,000,000 paid to Mr. Trump?

of

Did Mr. Trump derive any personal benefit out of the loan?
​

We will never know if any of the $500,000,000 was paid to Mr. Trump because of how easy it is to launder money.

We will never know if Mr. Trump derived any personal benefit out of the loan because the license fees for using his name are not paid directly to him and once those license fees are mingled with money from other sources it is impossible to differentiate them again. I am sure that you would be more than willing to agree that "Just because X resulted in Y increasing its profits by Z and shortly thereafter the owner of Y received an increase in income of Z." doesn't actually prove that X resulted in the owner of Y receiving an increase in income of Z.
Click to expand...

We know he got benefit.

How much is not known.

I mean, a half billion dollar loan is a license to print money for developers- look at how desperate Kushner has been to get a loan for his properties (and Qatar delivered!).
 
Re: Trump cancels Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

ObamacareFail said:
What mixed messages? Trump has pointed out all along that he would be willing to walk put of negotiations if the North Koreans were not serious. Trump cancelling the Singapore summit is part of the negotiations. Now NK is talking to us again. NK is now coming to the realization that Trump will not be played like previous presidents were.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is absolute nonsense. NK never stopped talking to us. In fact they told Trump not to bother coming if his expectation was unilateral denuclearization. He went on to mint commemorative coins then suddenly penned a bizarre letter which begins with cancelling the summit and ends with maybe not citing “open hostility” after Bolton and Pence bungled the whole thing with talk of a “Libya model.”
 
Re: Trump cancels Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

StuPedaso said:
OR djt's dumb ass National Security Advisor (and part time Faux News Troll) AND kiss ass Vice pResident indicated the US would only settle for a Libya solution. Which didn't work out so well for Kaddafi.



OR djt's "cancel first" attempt to save face, because Kim, if he's got a brain in his head, wasn't going for a Libya "solution"



OR, of you're listening, sounds like djt is trying hard to walk back yesterdays temper tantrum.
Click to expand...
You are on such a hair trigger to claim failure on anything and everything involving Trump that you cannot discuss the issue rationally. Take care and enjoy the holiday weekend.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Trump cancels Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

ObamacareFail said:
You are on such a hair trigger to claim failure on anything and everything involving Trump that you cannot discuss the issue rationally. Take care and enjoy the holiday weekend.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually I did bring up the bullet points that are being discussed as to why djt canceled the meeting. When you're loosing do you always resort to accusing the other side of irrational behavior. Looks to me it's you that couldn't come up with a rational response. Happy Memorial Day!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom