|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Dec 5, 2016 1:21:04 GMT -5
What they are saying is find a quote from Trump saying it... Not Durerte saying that Trump saying it... You won't let this guy babysit your hypothetical kid but you're willing to believe everything he says Trump says? Just cause you dislike Trump?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:21:36 GMT -5
Toehold told me that he "agrees that pedophiles should be given a yearly stipend for child porn to keep their urges in check" What on earth is your point? If I said that, and an article from a legit source said I said it, you don't need the direct quote to believe it's evidence. If some body said they had me on tape saying it, but the article that mentioned it had me on tape, even if totally legit, didn't quote me, does that mean I didn't say it?? You are really being an idiot dude. And you still didn't answer my question: do you let the person who thinks mass murder is ok but has the self control of a saint watch your hypothetical 1 year old daughter for a day?? You won't answer me because you know you wouldn't. Let me all ask you this: If this turns out to be 100% legit, would you guys admit it's pretty fucked up that Trump supports the actions of a mass murderer?? Or will you continue to say it doesn't matter?? Trump could be AMAZING in a million other ways, but for christ's sake will you AT LEAST acknowledge that IF this is true, that it's fucked up?? That's really all you have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 1:21:39 GMT -5
Toehold, if you are going to claim that trump has condoned the mass murder of people, surely a simple direct quote will be easy to find... you know, one where he actually says he supports murder.... I will hold my breath.
It's not even fun to debate you because you are so uninformed that you don't even give me a chance to prove you wrong... you do it to yourself.
Like Baph said, the whining of racist, sexist, blah blah blah... it is embarrassing to people like you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:24:45 GMT -5
What they are saying is find a quote from Trump saying it... Not Durerte saying that Trump saying it... You won't let this guy babysit your hypothetical kid but you're willing to believe everything he says Trump says? Just cause you dislike Trump? Dude, I will look for other sources, but how is it that an article MUST directly quote Trump for it to be a real source?? If this was in the New York Times AND the Washington Post AND Breitbart AND on Fox News but none of them ACTUALLY mentioned a direct Trump quote, just said that he said it and that there was documented proof he said it, would you refuse to believe it was legit?? A direct quote is FAR from the only definitive proof someone said or did something. There's things like written accounts of witnesses, video tape, etc. Direct quotes are not the only form of proof that exists in this world. Now let me go look for some articles.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Dec 5, 2016 1:25:34 GMT -5
This has to be the funnies shit on here.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Dec 5, 2016 1:27:04 GMT -5
What they are saying is find a quote from Trump saying it... Not Durerte saying that Trump saying it... You won't let this guy babysit your hypothetical kid but you're willing to believe everything he says Trump says? Just cause you dislike Trump? Dude, I will look for other sources, but how is it that an article MUST directly quote Trump for it to be a real source?? If this was in the New York Times AND the Washington Post AND Breitbart AND on Fox News but none of them ACTUALLY mentioned a direct Trump quote, just said that he said it and that there was documented proof he said it, would you refuse to believe it was legit?? A direct quote is FAR from the only definitive proof someone said or did something. There's things like written accounts of witnesses, video tape, etc. Direct quotes are not the only form of proof that exists in this world. Now let me go look for some articles. Would you believe Durerte to be a credible source or witness? Just answer that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:28:45 GMT -5
Toehold, if you are going to claim that trump has condoned the mass murder of people, surely a simple direct quote will be easy to find... you know, one where he actually says he supports murder.... I will hold my breath. It's not even fun to debate you because you are so uninformed that you don't even give me a chance to prove you wrong... you do it to yourself. Like Baph said, the whining of racist, sexist, blah blah blah... it is embarrassing to people like you. I will look for more info. And I didn't mention racism or sexism at all in this thread. Duarte is Filipino, so IF he likes him, then just about the only good thing that could be said here is that Trump isn't racist against Asians lol. To be honest, your complaining that I am crying about racism or sexism, when I'm actually talking about someone condoning mass murder, is ridiculous. The one is more of a condemnation of whether or not someone holds beliefs that might not be P.C., while the other is about whether or not someone holds belief that murder is ok, not just in principle, but as a way of running your country from one president to another. Not exactly the same thing. I'll look for quotes, but you guys haven't even given me the chance to do so. And IF it comes out in the next few days that this is true, I'm going to be interested to hear how you guys deny it. At least you are only asking for further proof. We've got Jackal hear saying that even if it IS true it's ok, cause Trump MIGHT have the self control not to allow his belief that murder is ok effect the presidency. At LEAST grant me that there's no connection between crying about racism and condemning someone for condoning the actions of a mass murderer??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:29:31 GMT -5
Dude, I will look for other sources, but how is it that an article MUST directly quote Trump for it to be a real source?? If this was in the New York Times AND the Washington Post AND Breitbart AND on Fox News but none of them ACTUALLY mentioned a direct Trump quote, just said that he said it and that there was documented proof he said it, would you refuse to believe it was legit?? A direct quote is FAR from the only definitive proof someone said or did something. There's things like written accounts of witnesses, video tape, etc. Direct quotes are not the only form of proof that exists in this world. Now let me go look for some articles. Would you believe Durerte to be a credible source or witness? Just answer that It's less about believing him as a source, than the article.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 1:29:32 GMT -5
Toehold told me that he "agrees that pedophiles should be given a yearly stipend for child porn to keep their urges in check" What on earth is your point? If I said that, and an article from a legit source said I said it, you don't need the direct quote to believe it's evidence. If some body said they had me on tape saying it, but the article that mentioned it had me on tape, even if totally legit, didn't quote me, does that mean I didn't say it?? You are really being an idiot dude. And you still didn't answer my question: do you let the person who thinks mass murder is ok but has the self control of a saint watch your hypothetical 1 year old daughter for a day?? You won't answer me because you know you wouldn't. Let me all ask you this: If this turns out to be 100% legit, would you guys admit it's pretty fucked up that Trump supports the actions of a mass murderer?? Or will you continue to say it doesn't matter?? Trump could be AMAZING in a million other ways, but for christ's sake will you AT LEAST acknowledge that IF this is true, that it's fucked up?? That's really all you have to say. My statement is as legit a source as Durete in this case. They are quoting Durete yes, but who knows what Trump actually said to him. Durete is nuts, if you consider him a credible source in the first place you really have to reexamine yourself. Yes I would let them watch my kid, I'd let them run a country, I'd let them perform surgery. If they are good at the job, and what it entails, I don't a shit what their personal predilections are. If Trump says he agrees with the actual way Durete went about his crackdown, then yeah it would be fucked up he'd admit that on the record. However if Trump actually supported him in any way at all, it was probably more along the lines of I'm glad you are actually doing something about the issue rather than sitting on your thumbs... along with hand motions to get the nutso off the phone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:33:45 GMT -5
What on earth is your point? If I said that, and an article from a legit source said I said it, you don't need the direct quote to believe it's evidence. If some body said they had me on tape saying it, but the article that mentioned it had me on tape, even if totally legit, didn't quote me, does that mean I didn't say it?? You are really being an idiot dude. And you still didn't answer my question: do you let the person who thinks mass murder is ok but has the self control of a saint watch your hypothetical 1 year old daughter for a day?? You won't answer me because you know you wouldn't. Let me all ask you this: If this turns out to be 100% legit, would you guys admit it's pretty fucked up that Trump supports the actions of a mass murderer?? Or will you continue to say it doesn't matter?? Trump could be AMAZING in a million other ways, but for christ's sake will you AT LEAST acknowledge that IF this is true, that it's fucked up?? That's really all you have to say. My statement is as legit a source as Durete in this case. They are quoting Durete yes, but who knows what Trump actually said to him. Durete is nuts, if you consider him a credible source in the first place you really have to reexamine yourself. Yes I would let them watch my kid, I'd let them run a country, I'd let them perform surgery. If they are good at the job, and what it entails, I don't a shit what their personal predilections are. If Trump says he agrees with the actual way Durete went about his crackdown, then yeah it would be fucked up he'd admit that on the record. However if Trump actually supported him in any way at all, it was probably more along the lines of I'm glad you are actually doing something about the issue rather than sitting on your thumbs... along with hand motions to get the nutso off the phone Glad you are doing something about drug abuse...like having thousands of people murdered in cold blood...yeah, that's ok, no problem with that at all... Well, all I can say is if that's how you feel, that you'd let someone who believes mass murder is ok watch your kid, then I don't know what else to say. And not only CONDONES it, but wants to work together with someone who does it. I guess even if this is true then we have nothing more to talk about. This is about how a tyrant dictator runs his country through mass murder, and another president saying he agrees with the way this man operates. I don't know what else to say. I'll look for direct quotes and more direct proof, but seeing as you guys don't even think it matters or understand how someone with an evil moral compass might allow it to influence their actions as a president, I guess it doesn't matter... Honestly, I think some of you guys are indoctrinated when it comes to Trump, almost like being tantalized by a cult leader. Whether or not this is true, for SOME of you, I fully believe that no matter what Trump does wrong, you'll never condemn him for one single thing. Like I said, I'm not even CLOSE to feeling that way about Hilary or Obama or ANY president or candidate I'd support. I'd fucking write any of them off in two seconds for saying such a thing as this article claims Trump said, if in fact it is true. And if it ends up not being true, then I'll flat out admit to you guys that I need to start being MUCH more careful about my sources, and not believing everything I read.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 1:41:13 GMT -5
Alright Toehold, your wife and kid are near death, the only surgeon that can save them believes that all blacks should be exterminated and all women live a Gorean lifestyle. Do you let him do the surgery?
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 1:41:31 GMT -5
Would you believe Durerte to be a credible source or witness? Just answer that It's less about believing him as a source, than the article. He was the only source in the article🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:42:57 GMT -5
Here's CNN, a pretty fucking reliable news sourec saying this happend. No, it does not have direct quotes, but do you think CNN would publish something if they really believed it was just the lies of a mad man?? I think they'd be EMBARASSED to write up something they didn't fully 100% believe was true. So lets focus on another thing: It says that Trump invited Duerte to visit him in New York and Washington D.C. So...if it's true he invited him, would you not say that that gesture of hospitality towards an evil dictator is fucked up?? And if the meeting happens, would Trump's becoming friendly with someone of Duerte's ilk not seem fucked up to you? www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/trump-duterte-phone-call/index.html
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 1:43:05 GMT -5
Much ado about "IF". Toehold, buddy. Relax. Smoke weed. I'm guessing China told Duterte that Trump said that to him. Maybe they wanna see what Trump makes of it. Either he alienates himself by supporting Duterte OR lose Philippine support, ergo giving China sovereignty of the South China sea if he denies it.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 1:44:01 GMT -5
Here's CNN, a pretty fucking reliable news sourec saying this happend. CNN is saying that Duterte is saying. Not that Trump said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:44:03 GMT -5
"He has invited me to visit New York and Washington DC. He said if I am around he wants to be notified of my presence. And I mentioned to him about the ASEAN Summit next year and he said he would try his best to be here. He wants to attend the summit and that would be great for our country. I could sense a good rapport."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 1:54:53 GMT -5
Still no DIRECT quotes (there are quotes, but they are mentioned by Duerte), but here's the New York Times on this, and it brings up Trumps fuck up talking to the president of Taiwan on Friday, which " A call on Friday with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, appeared to be out of sync with four decades of United States policy toward China and prompted a Chinese call to the White House."
But never mind me, I'm just crying about racism or sexism, not concern over Trump's getting involved in international conflict involving the largest country in the world and their biggest rival country...www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/world/asia/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-donald-trump.html?_r=0It says that "In a summary of the phone call with Mr. Trump released by Mr. Duterte’s office on Saturday morning, Mr. Duterte said the two had spoken for just a few minutes but covered many topics, including the antidrug campaign."So there's a written account by Duerte's office of this happening and what Trump said. At the VERY least, I don't think any of you can deny now that this conversation took place, and that most likely Trump seemed to not to take issue with how Duerte is handling things in his country:
Rodrigo Duterte Says Donald Trump Endorses His Violent Antidrug CampaignBy FELIPE VILLAMORDEC. 3, 2016 President Rodrigo Duterte on Thursday in Davao, the Philippines. On Saturday, he said Donald J. Trump was “quite sensitive” to “our worry about drugs.” Credit Lean Daval Jr./Reuters MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines said on Saturday that President-elect Donald J. Trump had endorsed his brutal antidrug campaign, telling Mr. Duterte that the Philippines was conducting it “the right way.”
Mr. Duterte, who spoke with Mr. Trump by telephone on Friday, said Mr. Trump was “quite sensitive” to “our worry about drugs.”
“He wishes me well, too, in my campaign, and he said that, well, we are doing it as a sovereign nation, the right way,” Mr. Duterte said. There was no immediate response from Mr. Trump to Mr. Duterte’s description of the phone call, and his transition team could not be reached for comment.Since his election last month, Mr. Trump has held a series of unscripted calls with foreign leaders, several of which have broken radically from past American policies and diplomatic practice. A call on Friday with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, appeared to be out of sync with four decades of United States policy toward China and prompted a Chinese call to the White House.Mr. Duterte has led a campaign against drug abuse in which he has encouraged the police and others to kill people they suspect of using or selling drugs. Since he took office in June, more than 2,000 people have been killed by the police in what officers describe as drug raids, and the police say several hundred more have been killed by vigilantes. DUTERTE’S ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN BY THE NUMBERS The program has been condemned by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and others for what rights organizations have characterized as extrajudicial killings. In rejecting such criticism from the United States this fall, Mr. Duterte called Mr. Obama a “son of a whore.” In a summary of the phone call with Mr. Trump released by Mr. Duterte’s office on Saturday morning, Mr. Duterte said the two had spoken for just a few minutes but covered many topics, including the antidrug campaign.
“I could sense a good rapport, an animated President-elect Trump,” Mr. Duterte said. “And he was wishing me success in my campaign against the drug problem.”
Mr. Duterte added: “He understood the way we are handling it, and I said that there’s nothing wrong in protecting a country. It was a bit very encouraging in the sense that I supposed that what he really wanted to say was that we would be the last to interfere in the affairs of your own country.”Mr. Duterte, who has said he was seeking “a separation” from the United States, a longtime ally, and has threatened to bar American troops from his country, also said, “We assured him of our ties with America.” He did not elaborate on that comment. Mr. Duterte also said that Mr. Trump had invited him to visit New York and Washington, and that Mr. Trump said he wanted to attend the summit meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations next year in the Philippines.
Mr. Duterte has often been compared to Mr. Trump for his blunt speech and populist positions. “I appreciate the response that I got from President-elect Trump, and I would like to wish him success,” Mr. Duterte said. “He will be a good president for the United States of America.”A version of this article appears in print on December 3, 2016, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: President of Philippines Says Trump Endorses His Violent Campaign Against Drug Abuse. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 1:59:43 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, how do you not comprehend this? Duarte is the only source, CNN is just quoting Duarte, CNN hates trump, there is not one shred of fact that trump said any of this.
This might be the most hollow argument I have ever been involved in. You have no evidence that trump agrees, likes or respects him... but you have convinced yourself that he is trumps mentor on drug enforcement.
How can your vote count the same as mine?
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 2:04:25 GMT -5
Toehold, do you think it was a mistake personally to call Taiwan... if so, why?
Or did Rachel Maddow tell you to think this way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:07:41 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, how do you not comprehend this? Duarte is the only source, CNN is just quoting Duarte, CNN hates trump, there is not one shred of fact that trump said any of this. This might be the most hollow argument I have ever been involved in. You have no evidence that trump agrees, likes or respects him... but you have convinced yourself that he is trumps mentor on drug enforcement. How can your vote count the same as mine? Does The New York Times also "hate Trump"? They're all making this up right? (and as far as our votes being worth the same, there are FAR stupider people than me in this country, both who voted for either Hilary or Trump...) Yes, you are correct that the source is Duerte, but there's proof the two talked and that very likely Trump was not opposed to the way Duerte is handling things. And if he's telling the truth that Trump invited him to Washington D.C. we'll find out pretty soon. The thing is dude, I KNOW that if this ends up being true you'll STILL see it as fine, and find a way to rationalize Trump and say there's no reason he can't be a great president even though he believes that it's just fine to commit mass murder as a dictator. Let me ask you this instead: There IS proof that Trump just went against over 45 years of public policy in being the first president since 1972 to talk to the president of Taiwan and that the Chinese then called the White House out of concern. This communication obviously hasn't been recommended by the United Nations for decades now and I'd assume there's a reason: "Since his election last month, Mr. Trump has held a series of unscripted calls with foreign leaders, several of which have broken radically from past American policies and diplomatic practice. A call on Friday with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, appeared to be out of sync with four decades of United States policy toward China and prompted a Chinese call to the White House."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:13:23 GMT -5
Toehold, do you think it was a mistake personally to call Taiwan... if so, why? Or did Rachel Maddow tell you to think this way? Yes I do. Because China has been in conflict with Taiwan for a pretty long time evidently. China's what, the biggest country in the world? A country it's probably VERY important we get along with right? So would you think that MAYBE we should not give them ANY reason to even ASSUME we might be on friendly terms with their greatest enemy? I'd think so. I mean sure, picking up the phone and talking to them might NOT indicate sympathy for them, BUT it doesn't NOT either. Obviously the United Nations has been opposed to our contact with Taiwan for over forty years, or we'd speak with them right? I don't know, it's probably a pretty important conflict to stay out of 100%, or at least the UN has felt this way for over 45 years. And it would APPEAR China was concerned, cause they then called the White House. I would not want to step between two great enemies, even by the action of accepting a phone call. I can tell you that if we are just pretending these are two incredibly powerful people fighting, I wouldn't want to give either a reason to believe I backed the other. Also, I bet you think Rachel Maddow is a complete idiot, but I've seen no reason to assume she's any worse than most other news broadcasters.
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 2:15:03 GMT -5
Who cares if he called Taiwan? It doesn't mean anything without any context. Taiwan is a democracy, china is socialist... you can decide who we more closely align with.
I can promise you read on msn or CNN that this was a bad move and let them make your mind up for you.
Why don't you tell me why that call was a bad thing for our country?
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 2:19:05 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, how do you not comprehend this? Duarte is the only source, CNN is just quoting Duarte, CNN hates trump, there is not one shred of fact that trump said any of this. This might be the most hollow argument I have ever been involved in. You have no evidence that trump agrees, likes or respects him... but you have convinced yourself that he is trumps mentor on drug enforcement. How can your vote count the same as mine? Does The New York Times also "hate Trump"? They're all making this up right? (and as far as our votes being worth the same, there are FAR stupider people than me in this country, both who voted for either Hilary or Trump...) Yes, you are correct that the source is Duerte, but there's proof the two talked and that very likely Trump was not opposed to the way Duerte is handling things. And if he's telling the truth that Trump invited him to Washington D.C. we'll find out pretty soon. The thing is dude, I KNOW that if this ends up being true you'll STILL see it as fine, and find a way to rationalize Trump and say there's no reason he can't be a great president even though he believes that it's just fine to commit mass murder as a dictator. Let me ask you this instead: There IS proof that Trump just went against over 45 years of public policy in being the first president since 1972 to talk to the president of Taiwan and that the Chinese then called the White House out of concern. This communication obviously hasn't been recommended by the United Nations for decades now and I'd assume there's a reason: "Since his election last month, Mr. Trump has held a series of unscripted calls with foreign leaders, several of which have broken radically from past American policies and diplomatic practice. A call on Friday with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, appeared to be out of sync with four decades of United States policy toward China and prompted a Chinese call to the White House." Dude, Trump went apeshit with MSM execs during their 1st media summit. Funny you brought up NY times & nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/11/trump-at-the-times-231752
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:19:08 GMT -5
I don't know what to say at this point.
Yes, I fully understand that you guys are saying that we don't have DIRECT proof that the phone call went down EXACTLY as Duerte says.
I understand this...dually noted.
BUT...I don't necessarily see a reason NOT to believe it went down this way.
We'll probably find out eventually, and if the two of them even meet AT ALL, especially in the U.S., I think that can probably be viewed as support from Trump for Duerte and what he's doing.
But just to completely leave that aside, I just have a feeling that SOME of you guys would support Trump no matter what.
Not Baph, he admitted that IF this happened it's fucked up, but I really think it won't matter what he does, some of you guys will back him to the death, and that's fucked up.
I on the other hand will NOT be opposed to acknowledging good things Trump does, and I'm sure he'll do at least a few.
Nor would I be oppossed to acknowledging that Hilary has done fucked up shit, given actual PROOF that she has.
Obviously we're going to find out what kind of a person Trump REALLY is, and I'm going to be interested in hearing what you guys say not if but WHEN he does some fucked up shit.
Will you all 100% back EVERY move he makes, or will you recognize anything he does wrong??
I'll be interested to find out.
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 2:21:16 GMT -5
Rachel Maddow might be smart... but her job is to manipulate facts to help the left and hurt the right... even when she knows the truth is being misrepresented.
You have not shown the ability to discern facts from spin and form your own opinion. When you say you will do research after you already started a thread with your mind made up shows your ignorance.
I have to go to work at 5:00 am... I am going to bed
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 2:24:34 GMT -5
Toehold, do you think it was a mistake personally to call Taiwan... if so, why? Or did Rachel Maddow tell you to think this way? Yes I do. Because China has been in conflict with Taiwan for a pretty long time evidently. China's what, the biggest country in the world? A country it's probably VERY important we get along with right? So would you think that MAYBE we should not give them ANY reason to even ASSUME we might be on friendly terms with their greatest enemy? I'd think so. I mean sure, picking up the phone and talking to them might NOT indicate sympathy for them, BUT it doesn't NOT either. Obviously the United Nations has been opposed to our contact with Taiwan for over forty years, or we'd speak with them right? I don't know, it's probably a pretty important conflict to stay out of 100%, or at least the UN has felt this way for over 45 years. And it would APPEAR China was concerned, cause they then called the White House. I would not want to step between two great enemies, even by the action of accepting a phone call. I can tell you that if we are just pretending these are two incredibly powerful people fighting, I wouldn't want to give either a reason to believe I backed the other. Also, I bet you think Rachel Maddow is a complete idiot, but I've seen no reason to assume she's any worse than most other news broadcasters. Ahhh...but this is where you question your sense of history & ethics. Taiwan was formed by refugees trying to escape Mao. Mao usurped China. What about the Government before WW2 who were able to fled to a small island? China is trying to claim territories from it's South-East Asian neighbors. Should we just give it to them because they're bigger? Also, Maddow is a shill. There are TONS of videos on youtube of Maddow getting owned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:26:34 GMT -5
Who cares if he called Taiwan? It doesn't mean anything without any context. Taiwan is a democracy, china is socialist... you can decide who we more closely align with. I can promise you read on msn or CNN that this was a bad move and let them make your mind up for you. Why don't you tell me why that call was a bad thing for our country? He accepted a phone call from them. Well...there IS context, which is that China and Taiwan are great enemies and China's the biggest country in the world. The U.N. MUST feel that there is a reason not to want to talk with them, or they would not have avoided it for over 40 years. It's true that in some ways it's not THAT big a deal...BUT...it's probably not exactly the smartest thing in the world either. One time is one thing, but if he actually made a habit of talking to them I'd imagine it might not sit well with the Chinese, and I would think we wouldn't want that at all for probably many reasons. I did hear that it was a bad move on MSNBC, BUT...in thinking about it, it seems rational to me that it probably wasn't a good move. I can make up my mind one way or another after hearing it...and I'd say it doesn't sound REALLY stupid, but it does sound "kind of" unwise to me, obviously unwise enough that the U.N. has convinced us to avoid it for a long time. It's certainly not the big deal that his supposedly getting along with Duerte is, IF it's true. So, I guess I'm getting tired of this now. I'll be interested to see what happens with Duerte, but I fully believe if we get proof this went down as purported, that you'll all think it's no big deal that Trump is buddy-buddy with a mass murdering dictator and thinks what he's doing is good. Just answer me this: Will you be opposed to admitting if Trump fucks up in any way? Or have you decided 100% you'll back him on everything? Cause like I said, FOR ME have NOT decided I won't back anything Trump does. I'm gonna leave the door just SLIGHTLY open that he'll do good things. In fact, it's more than slightly open that I believe he will do at least a FEW very good things, I just have a feeling he's gonna do a lot more fucked up shit than good shit. We'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:29:08 GMT -5
Rachel Maddow might be smart... but her job is to manipulate facts to help the left and hurt the right... even when she knows the truth is being misrepresented. You have not shown the ability to discern facts from spin and form your own opinion. When you say you will do research after you already started a thread with your mind made up shows your ignorance. I have to go to work at 5:00 am... I am going to bed. She does spin things for the left, just like probably 99% of the reporters you like spin things for the right which is just as bad. Ok, I still think you'll back Trump no matter what. You can believe I can't think for myself, you'd still be wrong, but I don't really care what you think. I already believe that I had enough knowledge to believe this quite likely went down as purported from that one article, and I still believe it probably did go down like that. You still never answered whether you'll back Trump to the death. I believe you will though. Whatever man. No need to debate this further, I'll just be interested to see where this goes. Have a good night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:33:27 GMT -5
Yes I do. Because China has been in conflict with Taiwan for a pretty long time evidently. China's what, the biggest country in the world? A country it's probably VERY important we get along with right? So would you think that MAYBE we should not give them ANY reason to even ASSUME we might be on friendly terms with their greatest enemy? I'd think so. I mean sure, picking up the phone and talking to them might NOT indicate sympathy for them, BUT it doesn't NOT either. Obviously the United Nations has been opposed to our contact with Taiwan for over forty years, or we'd speak with them right? I don't know, it's probably a pretty important conflict to stay out of 100%, or at least the UN has felt this way for over 45 years. And it would APPEAR China was concerned, cause they then called the White House. I would not want to step between two great enemies, even by the action of accepting a phone call. I can tell you that if we are just pretending these are two incredibly powerful people fighting, I wouldn't want to give either a reason to believe I backed the other. Also, I bet you think Rachel Maddow is a complete idiot, but I've seen no reason to assume she's any worse than most other news broadcasters. Ahhh...but this is where you question your sense of history & ethics. Taiwan was formed by refugees trying to escape Mao. Mao usurped China. What about the Government before WW2 who were able to fled to a small island? China is trying to claim territories from it's South-East Asian neighbors. Should we just give it to them because they're bigger? Also, Maddow is a shill. There are TONS of videos on youtube of Maddow getting owned. While I don't know a whole lot about the issue, and I'd kind of like to know more, I wouldn't say we should go along with them, but I'd say they'd be a dangerous rival to have so I'd probably assume we are better off not getting in the middle between China and one of their greatest rivals. Also, getting owned in a debate doesn't necessarily mean you can't have an intelligent perspective on what's going on in the world.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 2:36:54 GMT -5
Ahhh...but this is where you question your sense of history & ethics. Taiwan was formed by refugees trying to escape Mao. Mao usurped China. What about the Government before WW2 who were able to fled to a small island? China is trying to claim territories from it's South-East Asian neighbors. Should we just give it to them because they're bigger? Also, Maddow is a shill. There are TONS of videos on youtube of Maddow getting owned. While I don't know a whole lot about the issue, and I'd kind of like to know more, I wouldn't say we should go along with them, but I'd say they'd be a dangerous rival to have so I'd probably assume we are better off not getting in the middle between China and one of their greatest rivals. Also, getting owned in a debate doesn't necessarily mean you can't have an intelligent perspective on what's going on in the world. Maddow isn't a shill because she can't debate. She's a shill because her facts are twisted and shouting them out doesn't make her right.
|
|