Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1220 on: April 23, 2017, 05:33:47 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

How nice for you that you think that.  Trump obviously doesn't agree as he has done such things as attend one of his hotel's openings instead of doing his job.  I think it is more likely that he is not attending because he could not stand the roasting.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1221 on: April 23, 2017, 06:03:00 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

How nice for you that you think that.  Trump obviously doesn't agree as he has done such things as attend one of his hotel's openings instead of doing his job.  I think it is more likely that he is not attending because he could not stand the roasting.
He'd literally argue with every joke.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1222 on: April 23, 2017, 06:15:24 PM »
maybe do one of those google searches and show me how i'm wrong rather than just declaring that i am.
ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sino-Korean_relations

But, as usual, I'm not too interested in making you admit you're wrong. It's all about making sure no one here falls for your bs. Usually works well enough, too.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1223 on: April 23, 2017, 08:07:09 PM »
I think the point is that it is a semantic debate over what it means to be ruled. 

FACT: Korea was conquered by a progenitor of what is now China.

On this basis, it is fair to say that China ruled Korea.

However, Korea can maintain that the occupation never entailed any meaningful governance and so also say that they were never ruled by China, which is what I understand their position to be.  It is a distinction that is extremely important to these two powers, which is ultimately why Trump should have had some understanding of the geo-politics of the situation before talking with the PM of China about NK deescalation; it would avoid diplomatic pitfalls like this.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1224 on: April 23, 2017, 09:58:03 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.
If he didn't spend nearly every weekend golfing, I might want to believe you. 

Trump spends his weekends working for the country by golfing with world leaders. How hard do you work on your weekends?

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1225 on: April 23, 2017, 11:37:39 PM »
Trump isn't with world leaders every weekend. Even if he were, that doesn't mean he is working hard.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1226 on: April 24, 2017, 02:52:12 AM »
It's all about making sure no one here falls for your bs.

being direct and supporting my claims with quality sources?  how wily of me. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sino-Korean_relations

oh, a wikipedia page.  which part do you think supports that korea was once part of china?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 03:19:19 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1227 on: April 24, 2017, 08:58:09 AM »
being direct and supporting my claims with quality sources?  how wily of me. 
It's okay, buddy, we can forget your shameless quote-mining and not knowing what Puerto Rico is. A two-in-one deal, available only while supplies last!

oh, a wikipedia page.
Ah, yes, Gary the "I find Wikipedia pages unreliable when they directly disprove my lies" guy strikes again.

which part do you think supports that korea was once part of china?
About half of it. It's also well-sourced and doesn't involve quote-mining. You're welcome.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 09:00:35 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1228 on: April 24, 2017, 01:32:30 PM »
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1229 on: April 24, 2017, 02:08:01 PM »
Even when you can tell what words he's using, he's unintelligible. His yammering inarticulateness is embarrassing.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1230 on: April 24, 2017, 03:05:46 PM »
Yeah, I had to stop around a quarter of the way.
He's a Terrible speaker.  He constantly pauses, uses filler words, repeats himself every few lines...

Yeah, great, he saved money.  I'm happy for him.  But ya only need to say it once or twice, not 10 times.

But hey, at least he understands that you shouldn't insult leaders if you want their help.  So... you know... progress.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1231 on: April 24, 2017, 03:37:18 PM »
That was completely intelligible.  Maybe you aren't used to seeing transcripts of how people talk?  I had zero problem following any of it.  This is exactly the sort of talk you see in TV and Film scripts all the time.  He does meander a bit, but that is not uncommon when someone is trying to find a way to express themselves in the moment, rather than parroting a talking point.  Not saying he doesn't have talking points, but he clearly is not trying to hammer a specially crafted message in this interview, just boost his own standing in a general way. 

Re: Trump
« Reply #1232 on: April 24, 2017, 03:48:06 PM »
but he clearly is not trying to hammer a specially crafted message in this interview

Maybe he doesn't have a crafted message? Messages aren't bad things. They can show you've put thought into what you're saying.

For example:

Quote
TRUMP: They had a quote from me that NATO's obsolete. But they didn't say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete — not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO — NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism." You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.

AP: What specifically has NATO changed?

TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country's aren't paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn't believe. And then some expert on NATO said, "You know, Trump is right." But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror.

He doesn't answer the question and also admits to making strong statements about things he wasn't knowledgeable about on the campaign trail. What is the point of this answer? All it does is demonstrate he doesn't know or does not want to answer what has changed about NATO to cause a reversal in his stance that it is obsolete.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 03:50:04 PM by trekky0623 »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1233 on: April 24, 2017, 04:15:59 PM »
He doesn't answer the question and also admits to making strong statements about things he wasn't knowledgeable about on the campaign trail. What is the point of this answer? All it does is demonstrate he doesn't know or does not want to answer what has changed about NATO to cause a reversal in his stance that it is obsolete.
This seems to be a short (but clear) reference to his previous words on the subject:

"The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

"I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

"I said it [Nato] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete."

Those were his comments directly after his meeting with Stoltenberg, which, unsurprisingly, he also references in the answer you didn't understand the point of.

I guess outside of the context of world events it might indeed be difficult to figure out what he meant by And then some expert on NATO said, 'You know, Trump is right,'" or "But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror," but as soon as you take a slight adjustment for, well, current events being current, it stops being quite so baffling.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 04:20:25 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1234 on: April 24, 2017, 05:27:20 PM »
NATO didn't just start focusing on terrorism, though. Trump just found out that they focus on terrorism. There's a difference.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1235 on: April 24, 2017, 06:12:31 PM »
Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1236 on: April 24, 2017, 06:38:43 PM »
NATO didn't just start focusing on terrorism, though. Trump just found out that they focus on terrorism. There's a difference.
The Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. I'll take his word for it over yours, sorry.

From the Politico article I've linked above as part of my clarification:

Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump on terrorism, a problem toward which NATO has sought to adapt itself to address, and defense spending among member states, which both men agreed must increase.

Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."
Certainly, he could have picked a better word. But this word was not used in a vacuum, it was followed up with an explanation of what he meant and why. I guess if you're really looking to fault him for something there, then sure: he did not have the best words. Sad!
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 06:45:43 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1237 on: April 24, 2017, 07:52:23 PM »
Stoltenberg didn't say that NATO didn't focus on terrorism, though, so I'm not sure how you can take his statement to mean he agrees with Trump that NATO did not focus on terrorism but now does. And I'm sure Stoltenberg didn't think NATO was obsolete as little as nine months ago.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1238 on: April 24, 2017, 09:00:34 PM »
Sounds like Stoltenberg was basically saying:

"Terrorism is bad and we're trying to fight it."
and
"We need more money."

No where does it even imply that NATO hasn't been trying to fight Terrorism, it just hasn't gotten to the point of a unified front. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1239 on: April 25, 2017, 08:23:22 AM »
I'm not sure how you can take his statement to mean he agrees with Trump
Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that the organization "can do more" in efforts to combat international terrorism and increase investments into defense expenditures

STOLTENBERG: And I told him that I welcome that he is pushing for more adaptation, that NATO has to continue to change, especially when it comes to stepping up our efforts in fighting international terrorism.

We do a lot, but we can do more. And also when it comes to fairer burden sharing inside the alliance, many allies have to invest more in defense.

[...]

BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.
Yeah buddy I have no idea where one might get that idea. How could anyone possibly take the words "Trump wants us to do more [on terrorism] and I totally agree with him" to imply that he agrees with him.

The man literally says he agrees. Multiple times.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 08:26:24 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume