I thought it was direct, to the point and minus the kind of mealy mouth double talk we so typically hear from politicians.
You not only have drunk the cool aide--apparently you bathe in it too!
A politician advocating at the UN, which was established to foster world peace and stability after world war 2, the total annihilation of one country (and therefore by extension two as south Korea would probably be shelled to hell)... and you're impressed?
Cool.
Yeah, what a great speech.
Anyone paying attention knows that Trump has gone full MIC, and may have always been that way, or not allowed to run for office. Unfortunate debut at the UN. Statesmen aren't produced in the US, just war-mongers ....
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:50:48 PM
I thought it was direct, to the point and minus the kind of mealy mouth double talk we so typically hear from politicians.
Such a fine speech. Worth of the Reichstag! What? It was the UN? Seriously? That's just fucked up.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 21, 2017, 06:52:10 AM
Such a fine speech. Worth of the Reichstag! What? It was the UN? Seriously? That's just fucked up.
If Trump had said, lets all just get along with NK, Russia, Iran ... a sniper would have taken him out, while speaking. This is a sad commentary on what the US really is, not just on a tool of the MIC. Don't know that Trump really thinks, just understand he is no gentleman.
I've always thought of Chump as a lounge act. I feel vindicated.
OMG. He seriously threatened to utterly destroy another nation during his speech to the United Nations? Gods, I never thought I would wish for Pence to become President, but we really need to get rid of Trump ASAP.
Quote from: Shiranu on September 21, 2017, 12:45:42 AM
A politician advocating at the UN, which was established to foster world peace and stability after world war 2, the total annihilation of one country (and therefore by extension two as south Korea would probably be shelled to hell)... and you're impressed?
Cool.
He also criticized the UN for not achieving world peace (admittedly, a slightly more complicated task than healthcare, a topic no one knew could be so complicated)
And he also lied his ass off (http://www.newsweek.com/fact-checking-donald-trump-un-speech-4-claims-lies-misleading-statements-667668). Even if I totally agreed with this guy on policy issues (and I don't), he comes across more as a raving buffoon than a leader.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 21, 2017, 09:10:49 PM
Even if I totally agreed with this guy on policy issues (and I don't), he comes across more as a raving buffoon than a leader.
That is because that is what he is--a buffoon.
Im calling WW3 right now
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 21, 2017, 08:55:29 PM
OMG. He seriously threatened to utterly destroy another nation during his speech to the United Nations? Gods, I never thought I would wish for Pence to become President, but we really need to get rid of Trump ASAP.
Agenda 21 ... billions of useless people have passed their slavish sell-by dates.
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 21, 2017, 09:14:38 PM
That is because that is what he is--a buffoon.
But Hillary (I blame everyone except myself) Clinton is presidential? But Barak (getting money from everyone like Bill Clinton did) Obama is presidential? If a Democrat shot someone randomly in the street, Democrats would cheer what a good shot he is.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on September 22, 2017, 02:15:28 AM
Im calling WW3 right now
It will be necessary to muss up some people's hair (paraphrasing the general played by George C Scott in Dr Strangelove). Don't worry, the Elite in their luxury bunkers will survive it. Y'all wanted the 60s back ... here it is ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo
Been living with this all my life. No biggie. Triggering pictures with the song, snowflakes under 50 might want to cover their eyes ;-)
I just change the channel when Trump's face appears on the television.
Quote from: Baruch on September 21, 2017, 06:48:51 AM
Anyone paying attention knows that Trump has gone full MIC, and may have always been that way, or not allowed to run for office. Unfortunate debut at the UN. Statesmen aren't produced in the US, just war-mongers ....
There are a lot of MIC acronyms http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/MIC (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/MIC) I'll choose "Moron In Charge".
As to war-mongers, few US Presidents have chosen to be War-Mongers. Eisenhower resisted Vietnam put sent a few advisors to help our French allies, Kennedy resisted Vietnam but left the advisors and sent a few troops to train the S Vietnamese, Johnson resisted Vietnam saying why do we care. Every step was a foot into the quicksand.
Others tried to stay out but allies drew us in.
My biggest objection is that we don't finish what we start. Reagan tried CIA operations to stay under the radar. Bush senior could have ended Saddam early. Bill Clinton did it about right in the Balkans. Bush Junior messed up in Afghanistan. Obama tried to get out but couldn't.
Trump is trying to start a limited nuclear war.
I'm tired of us being the worlds' policemen. Let us back out and see what happens... IT WON'T BE NICE...
The era of post WWII Pax Americana is ending. A new era of militaristic-global anarchy is beginning. And we all will regret it.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 03:11:07 AM
There are a lot of MIC acronyms http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/MIC (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/MIC) I'll choose "Moron In Charge".
As to war-mongers, few US Presidents have chosen to be War-Mongers. Eisenhower resisted Vietnam put sent a few advisors to help our French allies, Kennedy resisted Vietnam but left the advisors and sent a few troops to train the S Vietnamese, Johnson resisted Vietnam saying why do we care. Every step was a foot into the quicksand.
Others tried to stay out but allies drew us in.
My biggest objection is that we don't finish what we start. Reagan tried CIA operations to stay under the radar. Bush senior could have ended Saddam early. Bill Clinton did it about right in the Balkans. Bush Junior messed up in Afghanistan. Obama tried to get out but couldn't.
Trump is trying to start a limited nuclear war.
I'm tired of us being the worlds' policemen. Let us back out and see what happens... IT WON'T BE NICE...
The era of post WWII Pax Americana is ending. A new era of militaristic-global anarchy is beginning. And we all will regret it.
I think Baruch means "Military Industrial Complex".
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:50:48 PM
I thought it was direct, to the point and minus the kind of mealy mouth double talk we so typically hear from politicians.
So which parts did you like? Which parts did you dislike?
Quote from: Sylar on September 26, 2017, 08:24:11 PM
I think Baruch means "Military Industrial Complex".
"Military Industrial Complex" ... should be "Military Intelligence Complex". CIA doesn't want you to know that. Even Eisenhower didn't want you to know that. But remember ... military intelligence is an oxymoron ;-)
missing intelligence complex? something to add to my medical terminology. or maybe you meant military indulgence complex
I was trying to see how his speech would appear if we cut out the part about North Korea, but its a little hard to ignore... maybe time for a vacation in Miami. I'll come back to l.a. after the Geiger counter gets down to 100 rads
no it won't be nice Cavebear. if the U.S. stops playing policeman the defense contractors will throw a fit. They think they have a right to our pocketbooks
Quote from: fencerider on September 27, 2017, 12:42:34 AM
missing intelligence complex? something to add to my medical terminology. or maybe you meant military indulgence complex
I was trying to see how his speech would appear if we cut out the part about North Korea, but its a little hard to ignore... maybe time for a vacation in Miami. I'll come back to l.a. after the Geiger counter gets down to 100 rads
no it won't be nice Cavebear. if the U.S. stops playing policeman the defense contractors will throw a fit. They think they have a right to our pocketbooks
In a democracy, every special interest has a right to your pocketbook. It won't stop until you and I are penniless. Ancient Athens failed ultimately (due to Spartan hostility). Without directing money to their fleet, they would have failed immediately (due to Persian hostility).
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:50:48 PM
I thought it was direct, to the point and minus the kind of mealy mouth double talk we so typically hear from politicians.
The first time I read the transcript I was unhappy. I was disappointed at the toned down nature of his speech. I had hoped for a more firery speech and thought the word 'kleptocrat/kleptocracy' should have been included at least once.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879
But I did like how he did not coddle some of the most egregious examples, naming N.Korea, Iran specifically. I would have preferred a straight up "its embarrassing that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE sit on the UNHRC; and their very presence is a slap in the face for anything associated with human rights."
rather than this:
In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution's noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
So I guess he was really trying to be a good statesman :)
All around I would give the speech a B.
Quote from: chill98 on September 27, 2017, 11:22:01 AM
The first time I read the transcript I was unhappy. I was disappointed at the toned down nature of his speech. I had hoped for a more firery speech and thought the word 'kleptocrat/kleptocracy' should have been included at least once.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879
But I did like how he did not coddle some of the most egregious examples, naming N.Korea, Iran specifically. I would have preferred a straight up "its embarrassing that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE sit on the UNHRC; and their very presence is a slap in the face for anything associated with human rights."
rather than this:
In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution's noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them. For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
So I guess he was really trying to be a good statesman :)
All around I would give the speech a B.
It was an insulting speech Trump gave at the UN. Secretary of State Tillerson was caught on camera holding his head in his hands in apparent frustration at Trump's speech. Most Heads Of State were stone-faced angry.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 12:51:56 AM
It was an insulting speech Trump gave at the UN. Secretary of State Tillerson was caught on camera holding his head in his hands in apparent frustration at Trump's speech. Most Heads Of State were stone-faced angry.
Nuke the UN ... they all bought advertisements on Facebook, so they are all ... Annunaki.
Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 07:19:43 AM
Nuke the UN ... they all bought advertisements on Facebook, so they are all ... Annunaki.
Another unsupported claim...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 12:51:56 AM
It was an insulting speech Trump gave at the UN. Secretary of State Tillerson was caught on camera holding his head in his hands in apparent frustration at Trump's speech. Most Heads Of State were stone-faced angry.
LOL
So What?! Lemme put it another way
Good.
Quote from: chill98 on September 28, 2017, 10:12:11 AM
LOL
So What?! Lemme put it another way
Good.
Well, yes, the point was that the Trumps' top Secretary cringed at the UN speech, and good for him. On the other hand, he hasn't resigned, so one could wonder how much personal humiliation a Trump Cabinet member can take. A LOT, it seems.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 10:22:00 AM
Well, yes, the point was that the Trumps' top Secretary cringed at the UN speech, and good for him. On the other hand, he hasn't resigned, so one could wonder how much personal humiliation a Trump Cabinet member can take. A LOT, it seems.
I wouldnt peg you for a Tillerson fan. So what exactly was YOUR point? Thats the best you can do? Tillerson seemed unhappy so Trump sucks? Thats the depth of your analysis??
Figures....
Quote from: chill98 on September 28, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I wouldnt peg you for a Tillerson fan. So what exactly was YOUR point? Thats the best you can do? Tillerson seemed unhappy so Trump sucks? Thats the depth of your analysis??
Figures....
Well I'm not a big Tillerson fan, but I saw his humiliation and who can't feel for THAT? Obviously, it was either not the speech Tillerson expected (and was therefore out of the inner circle loop), or it was what he expected and was utterly distraught thinking of how he could face he peers in other governments after the debacle.
I could go either way on that, not knowing what Tillerson knew beforehand.
That's my analysis... Analyzing Trump speeches is smoking grass and drinking beer at the same time. For the less experienced, that's like taking an upper and a downer at the same time...
I liked John Bolton. He could tell all the damn foreigners to get the hell out of NYC, and set up shop in Geneva, where pedophilia is more normal ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 01:11:50 PM
I liked John Bolton. He could tell all the damn foreigners to get the hell out of NYC, and set up shop in Geneva, where pedophilia is more normal ;-(
The UN is in the US for OUR political suasion, not theirs...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 10:48:42 AM
Well I'm not a big Tillerson fan, but I saw his humiliation and who can't feel for THAT? Obviously, it was either not the speech Tillerson expected (and was therefore out of the inner circle loop), or it was what he expected and was utterly distraught thinking of how he could face he peers in other governments after the debacle.
And how is that a bad thing? While I am not a fan of Tillerson, reading over his wiki page (as someone who isn't happy with the way things have been going for a very long time), I can't help but feel if Tillerson doesn't like it, its probably good for me.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 10:48:42 AM
That's my analysis... Analyzing Trump speeches is smoking grass and drinking beer at the same time. For the less experienced, that's like taking an upper and a downer at the same time...
Not to be too critical but your analysis of listeners body language leaves something to be desired in the realm of substance regarding the actual speech.
Quote from: chill98 on September 28, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
And how is that a bad thing? While I am not a fan of Tillerson, reading over his wiki page (as someone who isn't happy with the way things have been going for a very long time), I can't help but feel if Tillerson doesn't like it, its probably good for me.
Not to be too critical but your analysis of listeners body language leaves something to be desired in the realm of substance regarding the actual speech.
Fair enough. I base it on my 30 years experience of watching co-workers and immediate supervisors holding their heads and cringing listening to a higher-up butcher the facts we gave him while trying to figure out how to diplomatically tell the listeners later (and privately) that what they heard weren't really the facts. Just an idiot's misunderstanding of them.
And I learned to recognize my counterparts in other offices doing the same when THEIR bosses spoke at meetings.
I'll give you a perfect example. I created and managed a videoconferencing network in the mid 90s. Only to watch (On a video conference, ironically where I could not actually scream and be heard), when the CFO proved he could not divide by 10. He declared the videoconferencing network cost $9,000/hour when it cost $900. Less than the cost of sending 1 person across country for a 1 hour meeting.
My supervisor had to literally and physically hold me back from breaking into the meeting to correct the error. And because of THAT ONE IDIOT, a whole videoconferncing network crashed to a STOP.
So, yes, I do have some slight experience in interpreting the body language of underlings forced to listen to someone "more talented" (gag, gag) butcher a presentation.
OK?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 02:19:48 PM
Fair enough. I base it on my 30 years experience of watching co-workers and immediate supervisors holding their heads and cringing listening to a higher-up butcher the facts we gave him while trying to figure out how to diplomatically tell the listeners later (and privately) that what they heard weren't really the facts. Just an idiot's misunderstanding of them.
Fine. Then display the facts of Trumps speech that you dispute. Because in my 30 years of work experience, the most common reason for co-workers cringing was because something proposed increased their individual workload. Sometimes they had a legitimate complaint, sometimes they didnt.
So, in reflection and based on Tillersons work experience, Trumps speech would make him cringe if he planned on getting his corporate buddies great deals. And I quote:
QuoteFor too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success. But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules. And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.
Yeah, I can see Tillerson cringing at this. But not for the reasons you imply.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 02:19:48 PM
I'll give you a perfect example. I created and managed a videoconferencing network in the mid 90s. Only to watch (On a video conference, ironically where I could not actually scream and be heard), when the CFO proved he could not divide by 10. He declared the videoconferencing network cost $9,000/hour when it cost $900. Less than the cost of sending 1 person across country for a 1 hour meeting.
Sorry but I am not impressed with your analogy. A simple verbal error is not what caused the video con to be scuttled. My own dept went through a video vs teleconference debate in the early 2000s. The facts were vid was not up to the job/unreliable and costs were prohibitive.
But that is apples/oranges isnt it? While you are definitely free to use whatever parameters to decide good/bad etc, personally I do not put much stock in 'audience body language' as a consideration regading whether the actual words and/or ideas being presented are good/bad for me.
Quote from: chill98 on September 28, 2017, 03:01:56 PM
Fine. Then display the facts of Trumps speech that you dispute. Because in my 30 years of work experience, the most common reason for co-workers cringing was because something proposed increased their individual workload. Sometimes they had a legitimate complaint, sometimes they didnt.
So, in reflection and based on Tillersons work experience, Trumps speech would make him cringe if he planned on getting his corporate buddies great deals. And I quote:
Yeah, I can see Tillerson cringing at this. But not for the reasons you imply.
Sorry but I am not impressed with your analogy. A simple verbal error is not what caused the video con to be scuttled. My own dept went through a video vs teleconference debate in the early 2000s. The facts were vid was not up to the job/unreliable and costs were prohibitive.
But that is apples/oranges isnt it? While you are definitely free to use whatever parameters to decide good/bad etc, personally I do not put much stock in 'audience body language' as a consideration regading whether the actual words and/or ideas being presented are good/bad for me.
First, I cringed because the manager's disaster of a presentation caused continued excess and unnecessary travel expense. Personally, it meant LESS work for me. So you are wrong about THAT right off the bat.
Second, you are comparing 1990s technology to 2000s tech. Of course we would have moved on to the networks by then (and did in spite of our idiot CFO). But that was 10 years ahead. Pay attention to time...
Third, It wasn't a mere "verbal error" that stopped the videoconferencing network. It was a basic math blunder BY THE CFO (of all people). Everyone in the room knew it and no one had the nerve to correct him. I would have (and did later).
Fourth, it was not "audience body language" I was mostly referring to. Diplomats are trained not to respond (though lack of applause can signify meaning among them). I mentioned Trump's Secretary of State, cringing at what he heard (and thought off camera). The speech was obviously not what he expected or hoped for.
Professional political observers immediately caught the problem and commented on it.
I hope this helps you understand the situations, then and now.
Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 01:11:50 PM
I liked John Bolton. He could tell all the damn foreigners to get the hell out of NYC, and set up shop in Geneva, where pedophilia is more normal ;-(
(http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/268/001/4/S2680014/original.gif?v=1)
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 03:51:15 PM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/268/001/4/S2680014/original.gif?v=1)
Yeah, Bolton could really fling that S***. So helpful to international relations...
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 03:54:07 PM
Yeah, Bolton could really fling that S***. So helpful to international relations...
No need to be diplomatic, when you are sticking a knife in someone's torso ;-) I think the recipient gets the point.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 10:48:42 AM
Well I'm not a big Tillerson fan, but I saw his humiliation and who can't feel for THAT? Obviously, it was either not the speech Tillerson expected (and was therefore out of the inner circle loop), or it was what he expected and was utterly distraught thinking of how he could face he peers in other governments after the debacle.
I could go either way on that, not knowing what Tillerson knew beforehand.
That's my analysis... Analyzing Trump speeches is smoking grass and drinking beer at the same time. For the less experienced, that's like taking an upper and a downer at the same time...
Tillerson is just another hideous syncophant or Deep State keeper. He can say and do what he is told to do, or get thrown on the wood pile with the other failed Charlie McCarthy dolls. A President will definitely have his hand up a cabinet minister's ass, and not just an intern's ....
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 03:32:39 PM
First, I cringed because the manager's disaster of a presentation caused continued excess and unnecessary travel expense. Personally, it meant LESS work for me. So you are wrong about THAT right off the bat.
Second, you are comparing 1990s technology to 2000s tech. Of course we would have moved on to the networks by then (and did in spite of our idiot CFO). But that was 10 years ahead. Pay attention to time...
Third, It wasn't a mere "verbal error" that stopped the videoconferencing network. It was a basic math blunder BY THE CFO (of all people). Everyone in the room knew it and no one had the nerve to correct him. I would have (and did later).
Fourth, it was not "audience body language" I was mostly referring to. Diplomats are trained not to respond (though lack of applause can signify meaning among them). I mentioned Trump's Secretary of State, cringing at what he heard (and thought off camera). The speech was obviously not what he expected or hoped for.
Professional political observers immediately caught the problem and commented on it.
I hope this helps you understand the situations, then and now.
The recent security expert in charge at Equifax was a music major. These people are chosen on their golfing ability. Do you not read the Dilbert scriptures?
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 03:32:39 PM
First, I cringed because the manager's disaster of a presentation caused continued excess and unnecessary travel expense. Personally, it meant LESS work for me. So you are wrong about THAT right off the bat.
You make my point.
Quote from: chill98Because in my 30 years of work experience, the most common reason for co-workers cringing was because something proposed increased their individual workload. Sometimes they had a legitimate complaint, sometimes they didnt.
Second, SNIP
The point being made was YOUR work experience may be valid, but my DIFFERENT and equally valid work experience is no reflection on the UN speech.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 03:32:39 PMFourth, it was not "audience body language" I was mostly referring to. Diplomats are trained not to respond (though lack of applause can signify meaning among them). I mentioned Trump's Secretary of State, cringing at what he heard (and thought off camera). The speech was obviously not what he expected or hoped for.
Tillerson was an audience member for Trumps speech. GET IT?
Still waiting for an actual substance of the speech that bugged you, but I would guess none will appear because you havent actually read the transcript of the CONTENT, instead looking to validate your own bias via flimsy 'body language'....
Just curious, Do Peacocks scare you?
Because while its good to be hesitant around a barking/growling dog, the reality is Most will not bite you. A body language example that needs to be taken in context before declaring it a dangerous dog. Relying on your 'Animal instinct' to interpret a situation works sometimes. Relying on it to make most decisions creates the need for 'safe spaces'.
If you would like, I can send you a box of crayons.
Quote from: chill98 on September 28, 2017, 03:01:56 PM
So, in reflection and based on Tillersons work experience, Trumps speech would make him cringe if he planned on getting his corporate buddies great deals.
Wait, do you actually think Trump and Tillerson are at odds on this particular point (getting their corporate buddies, aka themselves, great deals)?
It's just kabuki theatre..You're witnessing more absurdities than ever and before Chump actually gets to play nuker in chief someone will pull the plug on him... Too much money at stake.
Quote from: Sylar on September 29, 2017, 06:04:58 PM
Wait, do you actually think Trump and Tillerson are at odds on this particular point (getting their corporate buddies, aka themselves, great deals)?
The discussion was Tillersons body language and my point was things trump SAID would make Tillerson cringe. It had nothing to do with whether they are at odds on this point. However, heres some old clips of Trump and its not that much different from his words at the UN. Trumps been singing this song for a long time.
Free trade
youtube.com/watch?v=sG1OLOjMEIo
1999 N.Korea
youtube.com/watch?v=1-1WE-ivtO4
More of the Oprah clip.
youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Quote from: chill98 on September 29, 2017, 11:01:42 AM
You make my point.
Second, SNIP
The point being made was YOUR work experience may be valid, but my DIFFERENT and equally valid work experience is no reflection on the UN speech.
Tillerson was an audience member for Trumps speech. GET IT?
Still waiting for an actual substance of the speech that bugged you, but I would guess none will appear because you havent actually read the transcript of the CONTENT, instead looking to validate your own bias via flimsy 'body language'....
Just curious, Do Peacocks scare you?
Because while its good to be hesitant around a barking/growling dog, the reality is Most will not bite you. A body language example that needs to be taken in context before declaring it a dangerous dog. Relying on your 'Animal instinct' to interpret a situation works sometimes. Relying on it to make most decisions creates the need for 'safe spaces'.
If you would like, I can send you a box of crayons.
You meet 10 loose large dogs. 9 of 10 won't bite. The 10th will attack and maul. That makes all dogs generally safe?
Meh, I'll be honest, I don't see how the Tilerson thing is relevant other than for comedic value and to show that the stabilizing forces brought in to try to keep Trump under control are having a headache of doing so. While there is an inherent statement that the stabilizing force is getting annoyed and therefor Trump's opinion must likely be moronic or divisive, it's not a great statement for or against either way.
The most damning factor against Trump's speech is just simple common sense. We really don't need MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Tilerson's expression, whatever to tell us that it was a good or bad speech, anyone with ears should be able to hear Trump speak infront of the U.N. and say, "Wow, that was fucking stupid and past-the-borderline scary rhetoric for the most powerful man in the world to be saying.". Simple common sense should tell us that someone calling for the mass slaughter of an entire nation through extremely horrific means in front of the organization formed after WW2 to try and stop geopolitical violence is inherently in the wrong.
It doesn't take a political scientist, a masters in journalism, or a job as a rocket surgeon to know what Trump said was wrong... which could be easily applied to 95% of the statements he makes. All it really takes is even the weakest of moral compasses (hence the reason even many Republicans cannot stand the guy) to realise he is not a good person and his policies are not good for America or for the world.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 01, 2017, 01:41:45 AM
Meh, I'll be honest, I don't see how the Tilerson thing is relevant other than for comedic value and to show that the stabilizing forces brought in to try to keep Trump under control are having a headache of doing so. While there is an inherent statement that the stabilizing force is getting annoyed and therefor Trump's opinion must likely be moronic or divisive, it's not a great statement for or against either way.
The most damning factor against Trump's speech is just simple common sense. We really don't need MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Tilerson's expression, whatever to tell us that it was a good or bad speech, anyone with ears should be able to hear Trump speak infront of the U.N. and say, "Wow, that was fucking stupid and past-the-borderline scary rhetoric for the most powerful man in the world to be saying.". Simple common sense should tell us that someone calling for the mass slaughter of an entire nation through extremely horrific means in front of the organization formed after WW2 to try and stop geopolitical violence is inherently in the wrong.
It doesn't take a political scientist, a masters in journalism, or a job as a rocket surgeon to know what Trump said was wrong... which could be easily applied to 95% of the statements he makes. All it really takes is even the weakest of moral compasses (hence the reason even many Republicans cannot stand the guy) to realise he is not a good person and his policies are not good for America or for the world.
"Rocket surgeon" is the best contracted metaphor I've seen in years...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 01:35:09 AM
You meet 10 loose large dogs. 9 of 10 won't bite. The 10th will attack and maul. That makes all dogs generally safe?
The 10th dog is N Korea.
Quote from: TrumpNo one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.
We were all witness to the regime's deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later. We saw it in the assassination of the dictator's brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport. We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea's spies.
If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.
It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.
Quote from: chill98 on October 01, 2017, 08:17:32 AM
The 10th dog is N Korea.
Yeah. So? Was there a point to your post?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 08:20:37 AM
Yeah. So? Was there a point to your post?
Sure. The quote was from Trumps speech at the UN. Not based on flimsy body language, but fact.
You are pissed at the wrong dog.
Quote from: chill98 on October 01, 2017, 09:49:47 AM
Sure. The quote was from Trumps speech at the UN. Not based on flimsy body language, but fact.
You are pissed at the wrong dog.
Nah. He ignored the speech written for him and just went off into "the wild blue wander" on his own. That's why John Kelley was cringing.
Only Trump pisses me. The rest are just hanger's-on.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 10:18:52 AM
Nah. He ignored the speech written for him and just went off into "the wild blue wander" on his own. That's why John Kelley was cringing.
Only Trump pisses me. The rest are just hanger's-on.
He gets to edit his speeches as he see fit. And once again you do not point to anything you disagree with because:
Coddling N Korea has not worked. Bribing N Korea has not worked. They are lobbing missiles and allegedly testing nuke weapons with circumstantial evidence indicating this is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 08:20:37 AM
Yeah. So? Was there a point to your post?
Hopefully your home will be in range of Rocketboy ... mine is not. So yes, NorK is a very big point. But Trump haters can always goosestep and clap when the US gets nuked, while Trump is in office ;-( The day they do that, kill all the Ds for treason. Traitors in 1861, in 1961 and today.
Quote from: chill98 on October 01, 2017, 10:57:33 AM
He gets to edit his speeches as he see fit. And once again you do not point to anything you disagree with because:
Coddling N Korea has not worked. Bribing N Korea has not worked. They are lobbing missiles and allegedly testing nuke weapons with circumstantial evidence indicating this is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
What is Trump proposing to do about North Korea?
Don't quote speech rhetoric -- summarize actionable agenda items.
Quote from: chill98 on September 30, 2017, 01:38:42 AM
The discussion was Tillersons body language and my point was things trump SAID would make Tillerson cringe. It had nothing to do with whether they are at odds on this point. However, heres some old clips of Trump and its not that much different from his words at the UN. Trumps been singing this song for a long time.
Free trade
youtube.com/watch?v=sG1OLOjMEIo
1999 N.Korea
youtube.com/watch?v=1-1WE-ivtO4
More of the Oprah clip.
youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that if T-Rex were to cringe during Trump's speech, he'd cringe at Trump [allegedly] preventing him from getting his buddies great deals?
If so, then that's ridiculous because both are on the same page when it comes to getting their filthy rich buddies (and themselves) great deals at the expense of the middle class and the poor. An example comes to mind -- repeal of estate tax -- which benefits the filthy rich like Trump and T-Rex, and shifts more tax burden from top 1% to the middle class and poor.
Quote from: Sylar on October 02, 2017, 04:26:42 PM
What is Trump proposing to do about North Korea?
Don't quote speech rhetoric -- summarize actionable agenda items.
The Trump admin admits they have a back door communication to NorK ... just like the US vs the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is as it seems.
Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2017, 07:41:49 PM
The Trump admin admits they have a back door communication to NorK ... just like the US vs the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is as it seems.
Every admin has had that. Trump just told his team to stop using it.
Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2017, 07:41:49 PM
The Trump admin admits they have a back door communication to NorK ... just like the US vs the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing is as it seems.
What does a "back door communication to NorK" even mean? As far as we know, every president had a backdoor channel or the ability to get it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 02, 2017, 07:49:04 PM
Every admin has had that. Trump just told his team to stop using it.
And you believe him? Silly rabbit ...
Quote from: Sylar on October 02, 2017, 08:44:12 PM
What does a "back door communication to NorK" even mean? As far as we know, every president had a backdoor channel or the ability to get it.
We should hope so ... having that in 1962 means you and I are still alive.
Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2017, 09:38:17 PM
And you believe him? Silly rabbit ...
First, he did not address me with that command. And do I believe him? At least he is consistent in that he lies every day, so of course I don't believe him. But then, the real question is if his staff believes him or not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 02, 2017, 10:43:04 PM
First, he did not address me with that command. And do I believe him? At least he is consistent in that he lies every day, so of course I don't believe him. But then, the real question is if his staff believes him or not.
MK Ultra crisis actors are everywhere. His staff are as fake as he is ... as was the WH before him. Think real Zapruder film.
(https://safr.kingfeatures.com/idn/cnfeed/zone/js/content.php?file=aHR0cDovL3NhZnIua2luZ2ZlYXR1cmVzLmNvbS9CaXphcnJvLzIwMTcvMDgvQml6YXJyb19wLjIwMTcwODExXzYxNi5naWY=)
Quote from: Sylar on October 02, 2017, 04:26:42 PM
What is Trump proposing to do about North Korea?
Don't quote speech rhetoric -- summarize actionable agenda items.
The topic is
TRUMPS UN SPEECH
so I will quote Trumps speech if I so desire.
Quote from: Sylar on October 02, 2017, 04:43:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that if T-Rex were to cringe during Trump's speech, he'd cringe at Trump [allegedly] preventing him from getting his buddies great deals?
If so, then that's ridiculous because both are on the same page when it comes to getting their filthy rich buddies (and themselves) great deals at the expense of the middle class and the poor. An example comes to mind -- repeal of estate tax -- which benefits the filthy rich like Trump and T-Rex, and shifts more tax burden from top 1% to the middle class and poor.
Actually I was guessing at which parts Tillerson [allegedly] cringed at. A discussion of Body Language is just that. Regardless of Trumps actual position. REGARDLESS of Trumps actual position. Get it? I read the transcript, I didnt watch the speech and from that could see which parts Tillerson
could cringe at. No one has said the cringe happened elsewhere.
The estate tax, while better than it was a few years ago, it still remain BS. But again, this was not part of Trumps UN speech was it? Nice try at deflection but I prefer (not always successful admittedly) to stay On Topic.
Quote from: chill98 on October 03, 2017, 08:31:27 AM
The topic is
TRUMPS UN SPEECH
so I will quote Trumps speech if I so desire.
Quote from: chill98 on October 03, 2017, 10:48:35 AM
Actually I was guessing at which parts Tillerson [allegedly] cringed at. A discussion of Body Language is just that. Regardless of Trumps actual position. REGARDLESS of Trumps actual position. Get it? I read the transcript, I didnt watch the speech and from that could see which parts Tillerson could cringe at. No one has said the cringe happened elsewhere.
The estate tax, while better than it was a few years ago, it still remain BS. But again, this was not part of Trumps UN speech was it? Nice try at deflection but I prefer (not always successful admittedly) to stay On Topic.
You are using topic of thread as pretext to avoid answering. I'll reframe my question.
What actions does Trump plan to take with respect to North Korea as a follow-up to his speech's rhetoric at the United Nations?
If that's what you're guessing, then you're guessing wrong. I gave you the estate tax as an example of you guessing wrong. T-Rex wouldn't 'cringe' at that part because he's not at odds with Trump about getting his buddies and himself great deals. Repeal of estate tax
is an example of a great deal.
Lastly, Trump's speech didn't happen in a vacuum. It has impacts on US domestic and foreign policy. It is only but a subset of US politics. Therefore, estate tax repeal and agenda items on NK are both fair game for discussion. The mods decide otherwise, not you.
QuoteThe estate tax, while better than it was a few years ago, it still remain BS.
Completely off-topic, but I am legitimately curious... what changed about the estate tax to make it better, and are you implying that the concept of an estate tax is BS?
Quote from: Sylar on October 02, 2017, 08:44:12 PM
What does a "back door communication to NorK" even mean? As far as we know, every president had a backdoor channel or the ability to get it.
Of all the US presidents the past 50+ years, Trump probably has no channel to N Korea...
Quote from: Sylar on October 03, 2017, 06:13:12 PM
What actions does Trump plan to take with respect to North Korea as a follow-up to his speech's rhetoric at the United Nations?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/asia/trump-korea-japan.html
Quote from: Sylar on October 03, 2017, 06:13:12 PM
I gave you the estate tax as an example of you guessing wrong. T-Rex wouldn't 'cringe' at that part because he's not at odds with Trump about getting his buddies and himself great deals. Repeal of estate tax is an example of a great deal.
I am going out on a limb here and guessing you did not watch the Trump speech and personally have no idea what parts people [allegedly] cringed at, which is why you have to resort to (I am guessing a personal fav for you) the estate tax. You are making up scenarios to compensate for your lack of firsthand knowledge of the ACTUAL speech.
Here's my personal (and too poor to be affected by it) opinion on the Death Tax.
The Estate Tax === Grave robbing.
You're not going to change my opinion about that.
Quote from: Sylar on October 03, 2017, 06:13:12 PM
Lastly, Trump's speech didn't happen in a vacuum. It has impacts on US domestic and foreign policy. It is only but a subset of US politics.
The UN is a vacuum. Congress, SCotUS, the executive branch, and ultimately the US voters are what impacts US policy. Period. And that is the way it should be.
Quote from: Sylar on October 03, 2017, 06:13:12 PMTherefore, estate tax repeal and agenda items on NK are both fair game for discussion. The mods decide otherwise, not you.
Fair game for discussion if you have a willing participant in a related topic. Therefore, I decide which participants are worth discussion with. The mods are irrelevant to that end.
Finally, thoughout this thread the only substantial complaint about the ACTUAL speech comes from the N. Korean statement, when, if looked at as written, is more hot air from the complainers and I quote:
The United States has great strength and patience,
but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
/quote
And that will be entirely Rocketmans fault if it happens.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/asia/trump-korea-japan.html
I am going out on a limb here and guessing you did not watch the Trump speech and personally have no idea what parts people [allegedly] cringed at, which is why you have to resort to (I am guessing a personal fav for you) the estate tax. You are making up scenarios to compensate for your lack of firsthand knowledge of the ACTUAL speech.
Here's my personal (and too poor to be affected by it) opinion on the Death Tax.
The Estate Tax === Grave robbing.
You're not going to change my opinion about that.
The UN is a vacuum. Congress, SCotUS, the executive branch, and ultimately the US voters are what impacts US policy. Period. And that is the way it should be.
Fair game for discussion if you have a willing participant in a related topic. Therefore, I decide which participants are worth discussion with. The mods are irrelevant to that end.
Finally, thoughout this thread the only substantial complaint about the ACTUAL speech comes from the N. Korean statement, when, if looked at as written, is more hot air from the complainers and I quote:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
/quote
And that will be entirely Rocketmans fault if it happens.
Too much inherited wealth creates dynasties of descendants with little or no practical experience. That's rather "royalish". I'm more in favor of riches being spread around a bit. Sure, give the kids a leg up, but not so much that they need not learn some useful skills to make their own way in the world.
I remember an old joke (updated to modern wealth). "My Dad gave me some great financial advice. Son here is a billion dollars; don't lose it" ...
The US will stay the US for decades or even a century. But the UN can be helpful. People who aren't starving seldom attack thoes with slightly more. Food and comfort is the tide that raises all boats. Give people hope at home and they will stay there.
N Korea could easily be destroyed. But they would kill millions in S Korea on the way out. That is the essential dilemma.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 11:16:27 AM
N Korea could easily be destroyed. But they would kill millions in S Korea on the way out. That is the essential dilemma.
Do you really think that it would be that easy? Do you think a nuke war could be contained within NK? You brought up SK--what of China, Japan, Russia, etc. Would they all sit on the sidelines of a Nuke exchange and do nothing? Could Japan or even the US be hit by some? Is NK capable of simply firing off a bunch of nukes in all directions before they die? Does war ever go as planned?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 11:54:18 AM
Do you really think that it would be that easy? Do you think a nuke war could be contained within NK? You brought up SK--what of China, Japan, Russia, etc. Would they all sit on the sidelines of a Nuke exchange and do nothing? Could Japan or even the US be hit by some? Is NK capable of simply firing off a bunch of nukes in all directions before they die? Does war ever go as planned?
Warplans fail in the first encounter with the enemy. But N Korea does not actually have useful nuclear weapons. What they have is a bizarre number of rockets and artillery aimed right at Seoul. They could kill 5 million people at will.
That's the major problem. Radiation fallout across Japan would kill may. We would really need a country-killer bomb with no fallout. And I bet we don't have that.
But I do sometimes wonder if a few neutron bombs might be up our sleeves.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 12:05:26 PM
Warplans fail in the first encounter with the enemy. But N Korea does not actually have useful nuclear weapons. What they have is a bizarre number of rockets and artillery aimed right at Seoul. They could kill 5 million people at will.
That's the major problem. Radiation fallout across Japan would kill may. We would really need a country-killer bomb with no fallout. And I bet we don't have that.
But I do sometimes wonder if a few neutron bombs might be up our sleeves.
Nukes, of any and all sizes, have fallout. And it matters not where (underground, on ground, or air burst). And it does not matter is the NK weapons are very good. Just being nukes makes them effective. And I think 5 million dead would be conservative. Fallout is the death dealer that just keeps on giving.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 02:18:37 PM
Nukes, of any and all sizes, have fallout. And it matters not where (underground, on ground, or air burst). And it does not matter is the NK weapons are very good. Just being nukes makes them effective. And I think 5 million dead would be conservative. Fallout is the death dealer that just keeps on giving.
The idea would be to basically eliminate all the N Korean artillery stuff at the start. After that, they are gone. Before they get nuclear weapons to launch.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 02:22:56 PM
The idea would be to basically eliminate all the N Korean artillery stuff at the start. After that, they are gone. Before they get nuclear weapons to launch.
Are you aware of the extensive tunnel system that NK has? Some of the tunnels are aimed at SK (most are big enough to allow two tanks side-by-side to travel forward), but apparently we don't know where all of them are. Do you trust that we have all of his missile sites and ammo dumps located? I think he is just crazy enough to have hundreds of such hidden sites and may have many missiles on a moments notice to launch. And if he thought he was going to die, would he spare Russia or China or any other area he could reach?
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 03:11:45 PM
Are you aware of the extensive tunnel system that NK has? Some of the tunnels are aimed at SK (most are big enough to allow two tanks side-by-side to travel forward), but apparently we don't know where all of them are. Do you trust that we have all of his missile sites and ammo dumps located? I think he is just crazy enough to have hundreds of such hidden sites and may have many missiles on a moments notice to launch. And if he thought he was going to die, would he spare Russia or China or any other area he could reach?
Of course not. But if we HAD to do something, you have to do what you can to mitigate the response. Better to destroy what you can 5 minutes before they launch than 5 minutes after.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 03:41:18 PM
Of course not. But if we HAD to do something, you have to do what you can to mitigate the response. Better to destroy what you can 5 minutes before they launch than 5 minutes after.
Okay, I get that. But I'd like to think that the powers that be are actually trying to diffuse the situation rather than making it worse. I don't feel that right now.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/asia/trump-korea-japan.html
Trade with China comprises 90% of North Korea's trade (as of 2014): http://www.38north.org/2015/10/rfrank102215/.
Not sure how new sanctions that don't take that into account will fare better than previous ones.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AMI am going out on a limb here and guessing you did not watch the Trump speech and personally have no idea what parts people [allegedly] cringed at, which is why you have to resort to (I am guessing a personal fav for you) the estate tax. You are making up scenarios to compensate for your lack of firsthand knowledge of the ACTUAL speech.
I didn't watch the speech; I read the transcript. You are discussing body language with someone else, not with me. I do not care about body language or establishing whether someone cringed or not.
Our conversation started when I inquired if you actually think Trump and T-Rex are at odds with respect to giving their buddies great deals. I gave the estate tax example as support for my position that they are not at odds.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AMHere's my personal (and too poor to be affected by it) opinion on the Death Tax.
The Estate Tax === Grave robbing.
You're not going to change my opinion about that.
Quite simplistic and lacking nuisance, but OK. Suit yourself.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AMThe UN is a vacuum. Congress, SCotUS, the executive branch, and ultimately the US voters are what impacts US policy. Period. And that is the way it should be.
You're wrong. Money is what impacts US policy. Case in point: NRA lobby and gun legislation.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AMFair game for discussion if you have a willing participant in a related topic. Therefore, I decide which participants are worth discussion with. The mods are irrelevant to that end.
And as soon as you decide I'm not a worthy participant, this discussion will cease.
Quote from: chill98 on October 04, 2017, 10:49:03 AMFinally, thoughout this thread the only substantial complaint about the ACTUAL speech comes from the N. Korean statement, when, if looked at as written, is more hot air from the complainers and I quote:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
/quote
And that will be entirely Rocketmans fault if it happens.
Comrade Kill All Fun doesn't give a shit about US -- he only cares about self-preservation. He will never initiate an attack against US (so US doesn't get an excuse to bomb the shit out of him) and he will never give up his nukes and ICBMs (so he doesn't end up like Saddam or Qaddafi).
It is common sense that if attacked, we will retaliate. It's not exactly news. Just fiery language to fire up his base, without actually substance.
Quote from: Sylar on October 04, 2017, 06:30:56 PM
Trade with China comprises 90% of North Korea's trade (as of 2014): http://www.38north.org/2015/10/rfrank102215/.
Not sure how new sanctions that don't take that into account will fare better than previous ones.
Me neither. But your question was:
Quote from: SylarWhat actions does Trump plan to take with respect to North Korea as a follow-up to his speech's rhetoric at the United Nations?
Which shows Trump is not going nuke. Trump is exploring other options first
Quote from: Sylar on October 04, 2017, 06:30:56 PM
I didn't watch the speech; I read the transcript. You are discussing body language with someone else, not with me. I do not care about body language or establishing whether someone cringed or not.
Yet (and I quote)
Quote from: SylarCorrect me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that if T-Rex were to cringe during Trump's speech, he'd cringe at Trump [allegedly] preventing him from getting his buddies great deals?
So there you are using body language and ignoring my actual response to that poster:
QuoteSo, in reflection and based on Tillersons work experience, Trumps speech would make him cringe if he planned on getting his corporate buddies great deals. And I quote:
Trump Quote
For too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success. But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared. Others gamed the system and broke the rules. And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.
/ trump quote
Yeah, I can see Tillerson cringing at this. But not for the reasons you [poster] imply.
Quote from: SylarOur conversation started when I inquired if you actually think Trump and T-Rex are at odds with respect to giving their buddies great deals. I gave the estate tax example as support for my position that they are not at odds.
See above speech quote. Yes I think they are at odds on several fronts. Not all of them, maybe not most of them.
Quote from: Sylar
You're wrong. Money is what impacts US policy. Case in point: NRA lobby and gun legislation.
LoL, its not the money in this example, its the votes. One thing often forgotten is lots of democrats own guns too.
Quote from: SylarComrade Kill All Fun doesn't give a shit about US -- he only cares about self-preservation. He will never initiate an attack against US (so US doesn't get an excuse to bomb the shit out of him) and he will never give up his nukes and ICBMs (so he doesn't end up like Saddam or Qaddafi).
It is common sense that if attacked, we will retaliate. It's not exactly news. Just fiery language to fire up his base, without actually substance.
First, you cannot guarantee rocketman will not launch an attack on s.korea, japan or even US holdings. Otherwise, on this we agree mostly. Which is the topic of the thread. So far, there has been NO substantial complaint about the Trump UN speech in this thread.
I disliked trump and all he represented. Didn't buy into 'the Donald' meme when it was current events. Did not understand why Oprah gushed over him at the time. But there it is, a video record spanning a few decades regarding his position on various political issues, some of which I find myself in agreement with. Some of which are personally important to me and some of which I just find wrong on general purposes.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 04, 2017, 05:36:31 PM
Okay, I get that. But I'd like to think that the powers that be are actually trying to diffuse the situation rather than making it worse. I don't feel that right now.
I agree. But my thought was about what to do "IF"...