ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

North2 wrote:

Oh right...Trump.


There has to be some personal benefit for Trump going on behind the scenes imo.

It isn't behind the scenes. Trump can tell his supporters he brought jobs back and fulfilled his promise.

Ted Cruz 2020, you're fired

Moon, Un, Xi and Trump for nobel peace prize? Yay or nay?

I'm still skeptical though, I almost expect some kind of red-wedding type event. Moon and Un genuinely hugging just seems so unreal.

Trump fucking up by the numbers in ways that inflict lasting damage on the U.S. isn't even really news anymore. It's just what he does, every day. Any day he doesn't jab a new bleeding wound in the fabric of the country, it's only because he's preparing to jab a particularly painful one in a few more days' time.

Everyone knew the steel tariffs were a rotten idea. He forced them through anyways. Opening shots in a trade war China is going to win? We'll have to see.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Moon, Un, Xi and Trump for nobel peace prize? Yay or nay?

I'm still skeptical though, I almost expect some kind of red-wedding type event. Moon and Un genuinely hugging just seems so unreal.

That's one too many people, you can only give a specific Nobel to up to three people a year. Honestly though it doesn't look like Trump actually did anything in this case, it seems to be entirely between Moon Jae-In and Kim Jong-Un.

If Kim Jong Un gets a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Kim Jong Un anymore, then I will never consider the Peace Prize valid again.

Whatever body-snatcher took Kim over these last few months may deserve a Peace Prize, but the man who's continued generations of torture, repression and tyranny over the Korean people doesn't deserve a Peace Prize simply for telling people he's gonna think really hard about not doing those things anymore. Especially since he didn't actually say that - he just said he'd stop threatening to blow everyone up.

Nobel peace prize is already a farce.

Obama got one for doing absolutely nothing (or for supporting islamic head-choppers, I'm not sure which was it). PLO guerrilla leader Arafat got one just for willing to talk to the Israelis and not being a terrorist (which again lead to nothing).

Kim Jong Un should get two, at least! One for being such a nice guy and one for the haircut.

I can see a viable timeline where Un is named man of the year, either because a) gold star generation, or b) he announces that he was born into this position, had to play the hand he was dealt (somewhat credible), but didn’t like it at all and has been working tirelessly to free his people from within.

The latter sounds very much like something D”onceuponatime”PRK would say, and again, the gold star generation would be eager to suckle from his teet.

In re: Trump’s role in this: More realistically, I think Un may be ready to start talking because “we are tired of your shit and will erase you from history” is another way of saying “we take you seriously.” Is it that hard to imagine that that’s all he’s ever wanted? Sure, we’ve always “taken them seriously,” but “we have to be cautious because we don’t want to piss off China” is hardly the same as “fuck China, I’m talking to you, Rocket Boy.” You just have to follow the conversation.

Hard to imagine? Nah. Legitimacy in the global sphere has been a goal of that regime since before it was properly a regime, and 'legitimacy' is just a fancy way of saying the world takes you seriously.

Doesn't mean anyone should take that howling lunatic seriously as a world leader. Take him seriously as a howling manic and a threat to global security? Absolutely. Take him seriously as a leader of people and a statesman? As soon as his people stop eating each other in the streets because they're starving, and as soon as he stops demanding his people worship him, his daddy, and his grandaddy as literal walking gods, I'll promise to consider considering it.

RE: Peace Prize - I didn't agree with Obama getting one either, and I admire Obama greatly. Those need to be earned, and potential peace isn't peace. Actual peace should take priority over potential peace for a Peace Prize, and furthermore years of being a total shitlord pushing nuclear Armageddon should automatically disqualify one from any and all Peace Prizes for life.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Just want to point out, again, that in the context of a secular nation (US), “God-given” means that there is a higher authority than government. It is an important notion, as we’ve seen time and again the catastrophe that plays out when the lizardfolk assume absolute authority. It isn’t just important, it is essential that We The People have a higher standard of authority to hold our mortal superiors to.

“God” in this sense is not an admission of religiosity, but a metaphor for the tacit admission that we’re fallible and will fuck things up if left unchecked. “Given,” then, is not suggesting that (to borrow from 1453R) some Giant Invisible Space Man waved their magical hand and made it so, but that the right transcends man’s authority to restrict.

While I think you are correct in the meaning of the expression, I can assure you that some (lots of) people take it literally as it sounds. In that since they think it's a literal god gift, it can't be wrong, it can't be improved and it should never be questioned/challenged. A good example is with some of the second amendment zealous defendants.

It doesn’t really matter how people interpret “God,” as that’s kind of the purpose of religion in the first place—so that after generations of forgetting the test, the lesson is still enshrined in ritual. As long as our so called representatives continue to push fairy tale platitudes like “common sense” and “military style assault weapon” then “God” remains the sole final moral authority on the matter, whether real, as a metaphor, or imagined.

"

1453R wrote:

Take him seriously as a leader of people and a statesman?

North Korea will not collapse by itself, as it was falsely predicted for decades. So you either take their leader seriously as a statesman on equal grounds and come to a political solution, or you ignore them while they further arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

The US has no reservations arming the Saudi theocracy, which is killing Yemeni civilians with American weapons every day and financing terrorism worldwide, but you'd have problems talking with Kim Jong Un, cause he's a "bloody dictator"? Please...