• 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!

17th prisoner released

PTF said:
Excellent post !!!
Lets not forget the lovable liberal/Demos who will always find fault. Our President works so hard not only for us but the world as well.
We had no leadership before Mr. Trump became President,none whatsoever. I totally agreed with gulfman about queen wannabe Hillary,she would of told them to go pleasure themselves.
Click to expand...

Also remarkable is how he manages to multitask.
 
itsforthekids said:
Thank you President Trump! No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, you have to admire President Trump's ability to negotiate the release of so many...without giving away anything in return.
Click to expand...

First off, it is a great thing when a prisoner/ hostage is released so Trump gets credit. That said, you have no idea what might have been offered to get the release, so your praise is parially illfounded. In addition, Trump undermines his own credability by constantly having to praise himself when he actually does get something done.
 
Shiftman said:
First off, it is a great thing when a prisoner/ hostage is released so Trump gets credit. That said, you have no idea what might have been offered to get the release, so your praise is parially illfounded. In addition, Trump undermines his own credability by constantly having to praise himself when he actually does get something done.
Click to expand...

President Trump gets the credit because he's the sole reason that they're being freed. If there was some hidden trade involved, it would have been leaked by now.
 
late said:
The first thing you need to keep in mind with NK, is that it's a devious PIA.

Hostages are SOP for NK, they still have more from other countries. And when they need a few more, they will grab them.

Trump will get peanuts, Kim will get the elephant. Foreign affairs has been an interest of mine since the Sixties, when I was in high school.

Trump has already been played, that will not change. But it could get worse.

I will offer a caveat. The best we can do is kick the can down the road, to temporise.

So if we do get a deal, and it kicks the can down the road (extends the nuclear hiatus a while), that would be a success. But there are a ton of problems getting to that point, and most of the Trumpettes are clowns.

Even then, deal in hand, we will have payed far too much to get it.
Click to expand...

President Trump has accomplished more with North Korea that any other president.
 
Cardinal said:
Why did you instantaneously slip into the "Trump is succeeding where Obama completely failed or didn't even try" narrative? You complain that trump isn't kidding the kudos he deserves, yet with zero basis in fact you immediately went to the narrative that Obama did nothing, didn't even try, and you're already poisoning the well by insinuating that any successes he did have must have been the result of trading terrorists.
Click to expand...

Obama DID trade terrorists for Bergdahl. That doesn't mean he didn't get back some other people through diplomatic means. I acknowledged that. What I asked is why the left gives Trump no credit for getting back the people from NOKO or the guy from Venezuela without giving up anything.
 
late said:
Yes, he made us look like fools.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. He's been twiddling Lil' Kim around his finger. Kim is the one who came scampering back to the table. Trump has nothing to lose if the deal fails to materialize. Kim has everything to lose if he fails to modify his behavior and thinks he can threaten us with nuclear weapons.
 
veritas1 said:
Hilarious. He's been twiddling Lil' Kim around his finger. Kim is the one who came scampering back to the table. Trump has nothing to lose if the deal fails to materialize. Kim has everything to lose if he fails to modify his behavior and thinks he can threaten us with nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Nice fantasy.

Trump has managed to piss off everyone in the region. Even better, because we can't be trusted, everyone is considering alternative arrangements. That's why South Korea signed onto China's Silk Road Initiative.

" Several Asian nations are seeking to bolster informal alliances among themselves, regional diplomats and officials said, unsettled by growing fears that the United States could not be relied on to maintain a buffer against China’s assertiveness."

That was a year ago.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-new-alliances-to-counter-china-idUSKBN18V0LZ
 
veritas1 said:
Obama DID trade terrorists for Bergdahl. That doesn't mean he didn't get back some other people through diplomatic means. I acknowledged that. What I asked is why the left gives Trump no credit for getting back the people from NOKO or the guy from Venezuela without giving up anything.
Click to expand...

So when you said, "Trump is succeeding where Obama completely failed or didn't even try," you acknowledge you were wrong, then.
 
late said:
Yes, he made us look like fools.
Click to expand...


How so? I don't care much for Trump yet he does seem to be working towards something good. I have a hard time thinking that if this was the previous administration getting the same results we wouldn't be seeing the partisans do a 180 degree flip on the good, bad, and ugly of this deal. So why is this so bad and foolish for us
 
gulfman said:
If Trump keeps doing terrible things like this he will be the greatest Presidenst we have ever had
Click to expand...

lmao...yes, Trump helped 17 people...while actively screwing 323 million. :lol: Must be all good, then.
 
Chillfolks said:
How so? I don't care much for Trump yet he does seem to be working towards something good. I have a hard time thinking that if this was the previous administration getting the same results we wouldn't be seeing the partisans do a 180 degree flip on the good, bad, and ugly of this deal. So why is this so bad and foolish for us
Click to expand...

I did a partial answer above in post 33.

No one would have done what Trump did. No one...

It's damaged our standing in Asia.

What you do is what Obama did, with Iran. You put together a good team of diplomats, intel guys and nuke experts to go talk to the other guys. Then you spend months or years arguing about it. Then, and only then, when you have a deal hammered out, you talk about it.

NK has always wanted a summit with a president. They badly want the appearance of legitimacy that would come from that. We've always held that out as a carrot. Trump just up and give it to them for free.

What NK usually does it cut a deal for something it wants. It usually wants food and Western goods. When they get it, they renege on the deal.

Which is precisely where this went goofy. This isn't like Iran, it's ten times harder... They have nukes, there is no way they are giving them up. Even if they said they would, they'd hide a few. Bolton the Moron let the cat out of the bag when he said "Libya Model". We overthrow a lot of governments, and that was what Kim heard, loud and clear. It's why they wanted to get nukes in the first place. We don't attack countries with nukes.

So... is there the possibility for a deal that will last only as long as it takes for NK to build a new nuclear site? Prob not.

We might get them to slow down. But that would require help from China (ooops) and the kind of diplomatic skill we haven't seen since Obama left the White House. Getting a deal with Iran was not easy.
 
late said:
I did a partial answer above in post 33.

No one would have done what Trump did. No one...

It's damaged our standing in Asia.

What you do is what Obama did, with Iran. You put together a good team of diplomats, intel guys and nuke experts to go talk to the other guys. Then you spend months or years arguing about it. Then, and only then, when you have a deal hammered out, you talk about it.

NK has always wanted a summit with a president. They badly want the appearance of legitimacy that would come from that. We've always held that out as a carrot. Trump just up and give it to them for free.

What NK usually does it cut a deal for something it wants. It usually wants food and Western goods. When they get it, they renege on the deal.

Which is precisely where this went goofy. This isn't like Iran, it's ten times harder... They have nukes, there is no way they are giving them up. Even if they said they would, they'd hide a few. Bolton the Moron let the cat out of the bag when he said "Libya Model". We overthrow a lot of governments, and that was what Kim heard, loud and clear. It's why they wanted to get nukes in the first place. We don't attack countries with nukes.

So... is there the possibility for a deal that will last only as long as it takes for NK to build a new nuclear site? Prob not.

We might get them to slow down. But that would require help from China (ooops) and the kind of diplomatic skill we haven't seen since Obama left the White House. Getting a deal with Iran was not easy.
Click to expand...

i agree Trumps approach is a anything but typical. Neither was Obama's approach to releasing some 11 billion to Iran as part of his negotiations. Something no other president would of done.

Both NK and Iran have a history of not following up on promises so we are a long way off from seeing how effective any potential deals are.
 
Chillfolks said:
I agree Trumps approach is a anything but typical. Neither was Obama's approach to releasing some 11 billion to Iran as part of his negotiations. Something no other president would of done.

Both NK and Iran have a history of not following up on promises so we are a long way off from seeing how effective any potential deals are.
Click to expand...

That 11B was Iranian money. What you just said was that we could never have relations with Iran... Not that you intended it that way, but that's also a rationalisation of theft.

Iran is not substantively out of compliance with the treaty. We are.
 
late said:
That 11B was Iranian money
Click to expand...
Never claimed it wasn't.
What you just said was that we could never have relations with Iran.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?
.. Not that you intended it that way, but that's also a rationalisation of theft.
Click to expand...
again point to where i say that
Iran is not substantively out of compliance with the treaty. We are.
Click to expand...

I did not claim they are. Although i don't think it's technically a treaty but rather a deal, thus why Trump can back out as he chose.

Imo the deal wasn't terrible but needed to be better than What we got
 
These "tastes great!", "less filling!" Threads are getting old. Funny thing is most people would be on the exact opposite side if Hillary had won.

Can we talk about real issues with real facts, or are we just doomed to listen to all this caterwauling until the sides are switched again?
 
Chillfolks said:
1) Never claimed it wasn't.

2) Where did I say that?

3) again point to where i say that


4) I did not claim they are.

5) Although i don't think it's technically a treaty but rather a deal, thus why Trump can back out as he chose.

6) Imo the deal wasn't terrible but needed to be better than What we got
Click to expand...

1) Just pointing out that we were just handing over their money.

2) Before you can resume relations, you need to dealing with any pre-existing conditions. You said no president would do that, which is absurd.

3) You didn't say that. But that would be the result...

4) No, you did not claim they were. But speculating they might, looks like an excuse for our violation now.

5) We have 10 other treaties that were never formally ratified by Congress, but we act like they were. Congress stopped ratifying controversial treaties a long time ago.

6) Actually, it's a good treaty. I've seen nuclear experts say they were surprised that we got as much as we did. I know everyone loves to bad mouth the treaty, but they fall into 3 categories:
a) They are lunatics like Bolton, and want a war.
b) They don't know what they are talking about.
c) Americans have a tradition of not wanting to look weak. It's gotten us into a lot of trouble. So what you wind up with is a whole lot of stupid.
 
late said:
1) Just pointing out that we were just handing over their money.

2) Before you can resume relations, you need to dealing with any pre-existing conditions. You said no president would do that, which is absurd.
Click to expand...
Not absurd at all. No previous president had handed the sum over. No candidate purposed such an offer. There was no person expressing interest in such a deal pre Obama. It was a break from any other politician.
3) You didn't say that. But that would be the result...

4) No, you did not claim they were. But speculating they might, looks like an excuse for our violation now.
Click to expand...

Well at least you admit I didn't say those things even if you try to justify falsely claiming I did.
5) We have 10 other treaties that were never formally ratified by Congress, but we act like they were. Congress stopped ratifying controversial treaties a long time ago.
Click to expand...
I've long thought congress is failing the American people by not doing their job. You point to one of the reasons I draw that conclusion
6) Actually, it's a good treaty. I've seen nuclear experts say they were surprised that we got as much as we did. I know everyone loves to bad mouth the treaty, but they fall into 3 categories:
a) They are lunatics like Bolton, and want a war.
b) They don't know what they are talking about.
c) Americans have a tradition of not wanting to look weak. It's gotten us into a lot of trouble. So what you wind up with is a whole lot of stupid.
Click to expand...
Or D) people who simply disagree with your assessment and, after reviewing the deals specifics, formed a differing opinion.
 
Chillfolks said:
1) Not absurd at all. No previous president had handed the sum over. No candidate purposed such an offer. There was no person expressing interest in such a deal pre Obama. It was a break from any other politician.


2)Well at least you admit I didn't say those things even if you try to justify falsely claiming I did.

3)I've long thought congress is failing the American people by not doing their job. You point to one of the reasons I draw that conclusion

4) Or D) people who simply disagree with your assessment and, after reviewing the deals specifics, formed a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

1) You proved my point about never again having normal diplomatic relations with Iran (if we kept their money). This was a non-issue, that's why it was never discussed, we had no right to money that was not ours.

2) Lame beyond belief. You are trying to hide from the obvious consequences of your choices.

3) The point is your assertions were DOA.

4) I covered that under b) not knowing what they're talking about, which you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
late said:
1) You proved my point about never again having normal diplomatic relations with Iran (if we kept their money). This was a non-issue, that's why it was never discussed, we had no right to money that was not ours.
Click to expand...
I disagree but see no point discussing it further with you. Neither will change their mind

2) Lame beyond belief. You are trying to hide from the obvious consequences of your choices.
Click to expand...
Not nearly as lame as accusing people of saying things they didn't say.
3) The point is your assertions were DOA.
Click to expand...

The point is you reference to a treaty when it's in fact Not a treaty. Then blame congress not acting for your error. Pretty lame

4) I covered that under b) not knowing what they're talking about, which you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...


You call this deal a treaty then claim someone else doesn't know what they are talking about concerning the details of the deal. Textbook projection. Save the BS your peddling to someone who could possible believe it. The deal isn't that great no matter how much you wish it was.
 
Chillfolks said:
I disagree but see no point discussing it further with you. Neither will change their mind


Not nearly as lame as accusing people of saying things they didn't say.


The point is you reference to a treaty when it's in fact Not a treaty. Then blame congress not acting for your error. Pretty lame




You call this deal a treaty then claim someone else doesn't know what they are talking about concerning the details of the deal. Textbook projection. Save the BS your peddling to someone who could possible believe it. The deal isn't that great no matter how much you wish it was.
Click to expand...

You goofed.

I'll get over it, you... not so much.
 
itsforthekids said:
Thank you President Trump! No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, you have to admire President Trump's ability to negotiate the release of so many...without giving away anything in return.
Click to expand...

Great Job by Trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom