*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1200 on: April 20, 2017, 10:09:07 AM »
I didn't say that's how it works bud.
I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?
Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1202 on: April 20, 2017, 02:53:06 PM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-20/south-korea-tells-trump-it-s-actually-never-been-a-part-of-china

lol

It actually sounds like China has conquered Korea a number of times but that Korea refuses to accept that that made them a part of China. A semantic difference at best.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1203 on: April 20, 2017, 03:57:52 PM »
It actually sounds like China has conquered Korea a number of times but that Korea refuses to accept that that made them a part of China. A semantic difference at best.
B-but Trump is 140% always wrong and that's funny!!1!

Yeah, the Korean Peninsula has been conquered by China (among others) many times throughout history. Quick examples: The Han dynasty held the North in 100BCE, the Yuan dynasty (aka the Mongols) vassalised Korea in the 13th century.

But, as usual, let's not get facts get in the way. It's hilarious that DRUMPTF said it!
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 04:00:11 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #1204 on: April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM »
considering korea as part of china because the mongols conquered them both is asinine.  at best one can say that ~2000 years ago, parts of korea were tributaries of the han dynasty.

frankly, what's laughable is not that he's wrong.  what's laughable is that he's inserting himself into a cultural-historical argument between two regional rivals who are both vitally important to us national interests.  for no gain.  it's absurdly amateurish.

https://qz.com/962409/donald-trump-and-korea-trump-makes-false-claim-that-korea-was-part-of-china/

Quote
“No respectable historian would make such a claim,” said Kyung Moon Hwang, a history professor at the University of Southern California and author of A History of Korea, when I asked him via email to assess Trump’s statement.
...
There are two moments in history that come close. The first was under the Han Dynasty, which in the second century BC set up four “commanderies” in the northern part of Korea. These, however, were more like British colonial rule in India, and not a formal union of Chinese and Korean territory. Still, Chinese researchers have tried to argue that this places Korea within “Chinese local history.”

The next moment came in 13th century AD, when the Mongol empire’s global domination happened to include both China and Korea. After a total of seven campaigns to take Korea, the Mongols succeeded, but “even then, the Mongols controlled China more directly than Korea,” said Hwang. Setting aside the controversial question of whether the empire of Mongol invaders counts as “China,” Korea was regardless only a vassal state of the Mongols.

If Xi said “something like this,” though, it is unlikely that he said anything as strong as Korea being “part of China.” He could have reasonably said something to the effect of, “Korea was once a part of the same empire as China.” That would apply to the Yuan Dynasty, the one set up by the Mongols and ruled by Kublai Khan. Or he may have said, “China once ruled Korea,” which could maybe work for the Han Dynasty. Trump could have then interpreted either of those statements as meaning Korea was “part” of China—which would be wrong, of course. Or maybe there was a translation issue. We’ll probably never know what Xi actually said.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1205 on: April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM »
considering korea as part of china because the mongols conquered them both is asinine
It's a great thing that no one considers the Yuan dynasty's invasion of Korea to be "because the Mongols conquered them", then. But, of course, even if you were right (you're not), this would be a moot point since the vassal status carried over when the Ming took over. There was also the Tang dynasty before that... and Qing after that... oh well, I bet they're all just made up, nothing to worry about there.

Gary, have you tried at least brushing up on the history of China before you wrote this? Like, seriously, this is high school level world history.

Kyung Moon Hwang
Breaking news: a left-wing medium managed to find a left-wing Korean-American who's willing to confirm the historical revisionism of the South Korean government, or who at the very least is willing to be a pedant about the difference between being a vassal state and a territory with some autonomy. I wonder how seriously you'd take this if it was a pro-Putin Russian historian making false claims about Russian ownership of Crimea. (Hint: I suspect not very seriously)

frankly, what's laughable is not that he's wrong.
Well, of course. Because he's not wrong and confirmation of that is one Google search away.

what's laughable is that he's inserting himself into a cultural-historical argument between two regional rivals who are both vitally important to us national interests.  for no gain.  it's absurdly amateurish.
What makes you think that there's no gain to it? And what makes you think that he's inserting himself into an argument? So far, the only angry responses to his claim seem to have come from sensationalist American media.

Where's all the outrage from the regional rivals? Judging by the Bloomberg link you gave us (you've actually read that, right?), all that happened was that their presidential candidates have decided to turn it into a dick-measuring contest among themselves, which is both predictable and normal.

Also, I thought China was our ally??????
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 07:51:08 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #1206 on: April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM »
I didn't say that's how it works bud.
I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?
Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.
I don't recall him actually explaining anything about his health care plans during the campaign except maybe selling across state lines.
What I recall is that he said it was going to be terrific, the best and everyone will be covered.

But I'll take your word for it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
Here's his healthcare positions officially.

-Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
(The bill didn't completely repeal Obamacare but it did remove the mandate)

-Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
(The bill did not have this)

-Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
(As you said, this had it close enough)

-Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
(These already exist, he's just saying to remove the estate tax portion of it)

-Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
(Didn't have it but it's not actually practical anyway.  Have you ever SEEN medical billing and coding?  It's a nightmare.  It's not like ordering from a restaurant menu, a doctor's office visit can change in cost depending on what they find.  An X-Ray or MRI changes in cost based on what they are looking for.  In order to even write a bill you need months of special training.  To give it an analogy: It would be like a mechanic being just as transparent with car repair.  How would they easily say "Well, basic inspection of your engine costs $50, $10 additional per problem found, plus time for proper diagnosis* [time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details], plus extra time (calculated after the fact) for any difficulty in removing parts required for diagnosis." without it being a giant god damn mess?  You can't just say "this costs x" because that's just not how these things work.  Hell, you can't even do that with anything complicated.  Budget overruns are very common for a reason. 

-Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
(You mentioned this)

-Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

(He kinda did this already by trying to remove the FDA or at least make it weaker, which is the only real barrier.  Though this kinda kills his 'America First' idea.)

How much of that was in the AHCA?
Also, he said that it was a bill in 3 parts.  I'm like... WTF?  Ok, you want 3 bills to do it.  Fine.  But 1. you didn't do much of anything in the first bill and 2. why haven't you even outlined the other two bill parts?


[/time]
Quote
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]
Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.



Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do. 

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.[/time]

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1207 on: April 21, 2017, 01:27:26 PM »
How much of that was in the AHCA?
Most, but I take your point on not completely repealing Obamacare (which, of course, ended up becoming the bill's downfall). I'd argue it's a mere technicality, but hey ho.

[/time]
Quote
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]
[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]
What the fuck even happened here?

Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.
I was referring to the response to the chemical attack, but both earned international praise.

Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do.
I simply disagree that this is the case. I feel like I've presented my reasoning. If you disagree, oh well, I guess we get to keep our opinions!

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.
Some of them are absolute pillocks, others seem to be quite on top of things and hence aren't covered all that much. McMaster is my go-to example because he's surpassed expectations to the point that the media can no longer be silent about him
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1208 on: April 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1439
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1209 on: April 21, 2017, 04:36:28 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1210 on: April 21, 2017, 06:15:46 PM »
In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html



This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.
I agree.
While I think Trump is dangerous and possibly mentally ill, it's impossible to know without having a proper diagnosis and that does not include TV ads and twitter.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1211 on: April 23, 2017, 07:08:44 AM »
North Korea is threatening nuclear war.
Congress is trying to get another Health Care bill through.
Protests continue in America.
The Taliban kill 100 Afghan troops.


Trump: I'm gonna have a Rally to mark my 100 days in officer!  YEAH!
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-22-US--Trump-Rally/id-a121c9abad2c4361964e18965129c89a


*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 451
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1212 on: April 23, 2017, 01:21:49 PM »
Despite complaining on Twitter that the benchmark of first 100 days is "ridiculous." It's as good an excuse as any to flex and preen in front of an admiring crowd, though.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1213 on: April 23, 2017, 03:46:42 PM »
North Korea is threatening nuclear war.
Congress is trying to get another Health Care bill through.
Protests continue in America.
The Taliban kill 100 Afghan troops.


Trump: I'm gonna have a Rally to mark my 100 days in officer!  YEAH!
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-22-US--Trump-Rally/id-a121c9abad2c4361964e18965129c89a

In case it went over your head, Trump is having this rally because the White House Association's dinner takes place on the same day.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 03:48:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3963
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1214 on: April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM »
Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2715
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1215 on: April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 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.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1216 on: April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM »
Gary, have you tried at least brushing up on the history of China before you wrote this? Like, seriously, this is high school level world history.

hahaha i went to high school in america.  chinese history...did not come up.

It's a great thing that no one considers the Yuan dynasty's invasion of Korea to be "because the Mongols conquered them", then. But, of course, even if you were right (you're not), this would be a moot point since the vassal status carried over when the Ming took over. There was also the Tang dynasty before that... and Qing after that... oh well, I bet they're all just made up, nothing to worry about there.

lol the yuans and the mongols are the same thing.  khubilai khan conquered northern china and was like "yo we're called the yuan dynasty now."  then khubilai invaded and conquered southern china and korea.
Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 6
The Mongolian Yuan dynasty was quite distinct from its predecessors...
...
The T'ai-ho code was to a large extent based on the T'ang code and survived the fall of Chin in 1234, for even after the Mongolian conquest of northern China, it was still applied to the Chinese population. It was abrogated only in 1271 after the Mongolian regime had adopted the dynastic name of Yuan.
...
Southern China, by contrast, was invaded and conquered by a Mongolian Yuan regime already firmly rooted in China and inured to Chinese ways. Khubilai had every reason to attempt to take southern China intact as far as possible and with its productive base undamaged, but here too populations declined seriously over the thirteenth century, though not to the catastrophic levels in the former Chin territories.
...
Khubilai was similarly successful in pacifying Korea. In 1258, his brother Mongke had dispatched an expedition to quell disturbances and to bring Korea under Mongol control.

also the ming dynasty did not keep korea as a tributary.  the collapse of the mongol empire precipitated a coup in korea that unseated the koryo regime.
Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 7 Part 1
In 1392 political events in Korea, where trouble had been brewing for several years, came to a head. Yi Song-gye unseated the Koryo ruler, Wang Yao, and established the Yi dynasty, which ruled Korea until 1910. With the founding of the Yi, Korean-Chinese relations entered a period of relative stability/

also the tang dynasty never incorporated korea into its empire.
Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3
The military ambitions of T'ai-tsung began T'ang expansion into central Asia, and renewed attempts to reconquer the Han colonies in Manchuria and Korea. His successor
Kao-tsung continued with these conquests, and by the 670s T'ang protectorates had been established up to the borders of Persia, the Chinese had occupied the Tarim and Zungharia, and destroyed Koguryo in Korea, although attempts to incorporate it into the empire failed.
...
In Korea the Chinese met with more powerful resistance. Unlike northern Vietnam, where Chinese dominance had continued at some level since Han times, northern Korea and southern Manchuria were controlled by the powerful and well-organized state of Koguryo. This kingdom put up such a fierce resistance to Sui attempts to reconquer the former Han territories that the Sui destroyed its dynasty in the attempt. The T'ang, under Kao-tsung, finally succeeded in conquering Koguryo, and for a few years incorporated most of Korea under a Chinese protectorate. But in the face of continued resistance their position proved untenable. Their withdrawal led to the unification of all Korea, for the first time, under the kingdom of Silla, while the former Koguryo territories in Manchuria and the adjacent coastal region became the nucleus of another powerful state, Parhae (Po-hai).

also korea was never incorporated into the qing dynasty.

to me it's like you're saying that belgum was once part of france because germany conquered them both; or that puetro rico and the philippines are part of the united states.  i mean if we want to be super vague about what it means to be part of a nation, then sure, i guess.

Breaking news: a left-wing medium managed to find a left-wing Korean-American who's willing to confirm the historical revisionism of the South Korean government, or who at the very least is willing to be a pedant about the difference between being a vassal state and a territory with some autonomy. I wonder how seriously you'd take this if it was a pro-Putin Russian historian making false claims about Russian ownership of Crimea. (Hint: I suspect not very seriously)

"that person is just an incompetent biased liar," and "yeah but if we were talking about something different then you would make a different argument," are not things i can argue against.

also being a tributary is absolutely not the same thing as being incorporated into an empire.

What makes you think that there's no gain to it? And what makes you think that he's inserting himself into an argument? So far, the only angry responses to his claim seem to have come from sensationalist American media.

Where's all the outrage from the regional rivals? Judging by the Bloomberg link you gave us (you've actually read that, right?), all that happened was that their presidential candidates have decided to turn it into a dick-measuring contest among themselves, which is both predictable and normal.

Also, I thought China was our ally??????

i feel like i've mentioned before that i think signals matter in foreign policy.  for example, if the north korean regime collapses, china's behavior may be dictated by the extent to which it believes trump supports their "historical claim" to north korean territory.  or worse, that south korea believes the same thing.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5931
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1217 on: April 23, 2017, 04:14:27 PM »
to me it's like you're saying that belgum was once part of france because germany conquered them both [...]  i mean if we want to be super vague about what it means to be part of a nation, then sure, i guess.
Yes, you insist on imposing this false equivalency, even though it has nothing to do with what I said. At best, it could be argued (wrongfully) that it's loosely related to one of the multiple periods in history I brought up.

Look, if you really want to espouse South Korean historic revisionism as gospel, that's fine by me. But don't be surprised if it results in you not being taken very seriously in discussions around these subjects, or that you might occasionally be taken to account over simple falsities. And if you choose to quote-mine a book to make it sound like you're right, well, I'll just remind you that this is something that can be verified with a quick Google search. It doesn't really merit much more of anyone's time than that.

or that puetro rico [...] [is] part of the united states
In this case, I agree: the factually correct thing that I stated is just like this other factually correct thing.

Puerto Rico [...] is an unincorporated territory of the United States located in the northeast Caribbean Sea.

"that person is just an incompetent biased liar," and "yeah but if we were talking about something different then you would make a different argument," are not things i can argue against.
It's a good thing that I said neither of those things. I'm just pointing out that, in my view, your eagerness to double-down on revisionism would be considerably lower if that revisionism didn't support your immediate interest. Your inability to respond confirms that suggestion.

also being a tributary is absolutely not the same thing as being incorporated into an empire.
It's a good thing we're talking about a number of occupations and vassalages, then.

i feel like i've mentioned before that i think signals matter in foreign policy.  for example, if the north korean regime collapses, china's behavior may be dictated by the extent to which it believes trump supports their "historical claim" to north korean territory.  or worse, that south korea believes the same thing.
Right, so your entire objection here is that you like South Korea more than you like China. I'm sure you have reasons for that, but I'm not sure that justifies doubling down on alt-facts and considering anyone who disagrees to be hilarious. It's just a tad irrational.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 04:24:22 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Trump
« Reply #1218 on: April 23, 2017, 04:32:10 PM »
so just to be clear, you're criticizing me for backing up my claims with with analysis from professional historians in peer-reviewed works that directly say what i'm claiming.  "quote-mining" lol what a joke. 

if you have anything to add beyond sarcastic remarks and "it's so obvious that you're wrong," then i'm all ears.  maybe do one of those google searches and show me how i'm wrong rather than just declaring that i am.
shitposting leftists are never alone

Re: Trump
« Reply #1219 on: April 23, 2017, 04:46:25 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. 

And attending a dinner party to mend fences with the press is a very valuable use of your time if you spent the better part of a year insulting them.  You know, the people whose job it is to get your message out to the majority of people?