Trump the Liar

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
So Obama never tried to engage with NK? Solid strategy, if you don't engage you can't be turned down. What's funny is that they would rather be seen as doing nothing instead of giving Trump some creed for at least trying to do something.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0

MichiganHerd

All-American
Aug 17, 2011
44,277
9,609
0
The 'Apologist-In-Chief' had a different strategy, when dealing with North Korea.

 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
The 'Apologist-In-Chief' had a different strategy, when dealing with North Korea.

Yeah so? BO didn't reward KJU for no progress and definitely didn't say he was in love with KJU lol smh. Trump has dictator envy.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
So Obama never tried to engage with NK? Solid strategy, if you don't engage you can't be turned down. What's funny is that they would rather be seen as doing nothing instead of giving Trump some creed for at least trying to do something.
I'd change the subject too. Trump lies about BO's NK effort to make his seem somehow better. Trump should try a new angle and quit lying about everything.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
Meanwhile, KJU still has all those nukes, which was the main point of all of this. And he ain't giving them up.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
I'd change the subject too. Trump lies about BO's NK effort to make his seem somehow better. Trump should try a new angle and quit lying about everything.

I guess I will wait for the proof that they never tried to engage, i hope they did. If it's true that Obama thought that NK was the #1 threat leaving office and he never tried to engage, I really don't know what to think about that.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
I guess I will wait for the proof that they never tried to engage, i hope they did. If it's true that Obama thought that NK was the #1 threat leaving office and he never tried to engage, I really don't know what to think about that.
Google it.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
And he wonders why reasonable people on this thread knows he is such a moron without a clue on practically every subject.

haha. you got me now. I have been asked to assist in building anti bullying workshop for a summer youth program, can I ask you some questions about the negative impact of being bullied at a young age and not seeking help to reconcile the trauma you/others experienced?
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
Google it.

gave food but got nothing in return...

Obama's 'Victory' with North Korea


Jack David

The Obama administration has announced a new nuclear agreement with North Korea under its new supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The administration says that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on nuclear-weapons and missile-delivery activities at Yongbyon, one of North Korea’s known nuclear-weapons-related facilities, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing to provide food aid. The announced bargain is worse than bad.

Wholly apart from the fact that North Korea has dishonored each and every non-proliferation agreement it has made over the years and can be expected not to comply with this agreement as well, its promise to suspend already-illegal activities in one location leaves it completely free to continue them elsewhere. Making a single-site moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear misconduct the central feature of an agreement is astonishingly foolish, even for an administration like President Obama’s that is naturally supine in foreign affairs.

The administration’s characterization of North Korea’s end of the announced bargain as demonstrating North Korea’s “commitment to denuclearization” is an insult to the intelligence of even a person with casual knowledge of North Korea’s dispersed nuclear-weapons and missile programs. Can it be that the administration heralds the bargain because this feature will allow it to claim victory even if the same North Korean illegal and dangerous activities continue elsewhere on the peninsula? Is the administration’s desire to declare a foreign-policy success so great as to be that myopic? One can imagine President Obama in such circumstances declaring that the agreement was “a good start.”

The U.S. promise to supply North Korea with 240,000 metric tons of food aid as part of the bargain also is more than suspect. Wholly apart from whether North Korea needs food aid it would be able to buy food on the world market if it redirected the money it uses for its national nuclear-weapons and missile programs virtually all international food aid it previously has received has been diverted from the intended beneficiaries to the purposes of the North Korean elites and military. The intended beneficiaries are North Korean people who are in need of food, the portion of the population the supreme leader (and his father and grandfather before him) categorizes under the North Korean songbun system as politically disloyal and thereby not worthy of being provided with food and other necessaries. Given that the U.S. announced its promise of the food aid without details, it probably is too much to hope that the details will address this details about what is to be distributed and how distribution is to be monitored so that intended beneficiaries actually receive and are allowed to use the aid.

It is naïve at best for the administration to herald a North Korean “commitment to denuclearization” after the many years of North Korean actions definitively proving the contrary. In light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary that the Kim family regime has given over the years, it is especially foolish for the administration to have reaffirmed that the U.S. has no hostile intent toward Pyongyang.

The U.S. declaration of policy regarding North Korea should be that it will do all it can, short of initiating a war against North Korea, to stave off the dangers the Kim family regime poses to and inflicts on the North Korean people, North Korea’ s neighbors, and the victims of proliferation.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
gave food but got nothing in return...

Obama's 'Victory' with North Korea


Jack David

The Obama administration has announced a new nuclear agreement with North Korea under its new supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The administration says that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on nuclear-weapons and missile-delivery activities at Yongbyon, one of North Korea’s known nuclear-weapons-related facilities, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing to provide food aid. The announced bargain is worse than bad.

Wholly apart from the fact that North Korea has dishonored each and every non-proliferation agreement it has made over the years and can be expected not to comply with this agreement as well, its promise to suspend already-illegal activities in one location leaves it completely free to continue them elsewhere. Making a single-site moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear misconduct the central feature of an agreement is astonishingly foolish, even for an administration like President Obama’s that is naturally supine in foreign affairs.

The administration’s characterization of North Korea’s end of the announced bargain as demonstrating North Korea’s “commitment to denuclearization” is an insult to the intelligence of even a person with casual knowledge of North Korea’s dispersed nuclear-weapons and missile programs. Can it be that the administration heralds the bargain because this feature will allow it to claim victory even if the same North Korean illegal and dangerous activities continue elsewhere on the peninsula? Is the administration’s desire to declare a foreign-policy success so great as to be that myopic? One can imagine President Obama in such circumstances declaring that the agreement was “a good start.”

The U.S. promise to supply North Korea with 240,000 metric tons of food aid as part of the bargain also is more than suspect. Wholly apart from whether North Korea needs food aid it would be able to buy food on the world market if it redirected the money it uses for its national nuclear-weapons and missile programs virtually all international food aid it previously has received has been diverted from the intended beneficiaries to the purposes of the North Korean elites and military. The intended beneficiaries are North Korean people who are in need of food, the portion of the population the supreme leader (and his father and grandfather before him) categorizes under the North Korean songbun system as politically disloyal and thereby not worthy of being provided with food and other necessaries. Given that the U.S. announced its promise of the food aid without details, it probably is too much to hope that the details will address this details about what is to be distributed and how distribution is to be monitored so that intended beneficiaries actually receive and are allowed to use the aid.

It is naïve at best for the administration to herald a North Korean “commitment to denuclearization” after the many years of North Korean actions definitively proving the contrary. In light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary that the Kim family regime has given over the years, it is especially foolish for the administration to have reaffirmed that the U.S. has no hostile intent toward Pyongyang.

The U.S. declaration of policy regarding North Korea should be that it will do all it can, short of initiating a war against North Korea, to stave off the dangers the Kim family regime poses to and inflicts on the North Korean people, North Korea’ s neighbors, and the victims of proliferation.
Looks like you were wrong, BO did engage them.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
Not sure it's proof, but he said he would meet with NK.... bonus points for using a liberal source. I guess he was too busy playing golf to ever try and set up a meeting.


https://newsone.com/3779793/trump-kim-north-korea-obama-debate/

Obama Was Called Naive For Wanting To Meet With North Korea
The criticism surrounding the president agreeing to meet with North Korea’s maniacal leader has been kept to a minimum, at least immediately after the unexpected announcement was made Thursday night. However, it is hard to forget that the opposite was true for a young Barack Obama on his first presidential campaign trail when he said during a Democratic primary debate in 2007 that he would be open to doing the same.


Obama was asked whether he would “be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with” North Korea and leaders of other countries that are hostile to the U.S. The future president didn’t blink: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

His then-opponent Sen. John McCain blasted Obama for what he called “the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to presidential summits based entirely on emotion.”

We’ll be waiting to see if any Republicans call out Trump this time around.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
Not sure it's proof, but he said he would meet with NK.... bonus points for using a liberal source. I guess he was too busy playing golf to ever try and set up a meeting.


https://newsone.com/3779793/trump-kim-north-korea-obama-debate/

Obama Was Called Naive For Wanting To Meet With North Korea
The criticism surrounding the president agreeing to meet with North Korea’s maniacal leader has been kept to a minimum, at least immediately after the unexpected announcement was made Thursday night. However, it is hard to forget that the opposite was true for a young Barack Obama on his first presidential campaign trail when he said during a Democratic primary debate in 2007 that he would be open to doing the same.


Obama was asked whether he would “be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with” North Korea and leaders of other countries that are hostile to the U.S. The future president didn’t blink: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

His then-opponent Sen. John McCain blasted Obama for what he called “the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to presidential summits based entirely on emotion.”

We’ll be waiting to see if any Republicans call out Trump this time around.
Since BO had no major agreement to sign with NK there was no reason to meet. A meeting between the U.S. and NK had been viewed as a reward for NK by BO and prior U.S. presidents. Trump likes photo ops so he'll meet with about anybody particularly despotic Communist rulers regardless of whether there is any negotiating progress.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
Since BO had no major agreement to sign with NK there was no reason to meet. A meeting between the U.S. and NK had been viewed as a reward for NK by BO and prior U.S. presidents. Trump likes photo ops so he'll meet with about anybody particularly despotic Communist rulers regardless of whether there is any negotiating progress.


Yes he did, and he was proud to make this deal...
Obama's 'Victory' with North Korea

Jack David

The Obama administration has announced a new nuclear agreement with North Korea under its new supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The administration says that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on nuclear-weapons and missile-delivery activities at Yongbyon, one of North Korea’s known nuclear-weapons-related facilities, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing to provide food aid. The announced bargain is worse than bad.

Wholly apart from the fact that North Korea has dishonored each and every non-proliferation agreement it has made over the years and can be expected not to comply with this agreement as well, its promise to suspend already-illegal activities in one location leaves it completely free to continue them elsewhere. Making a single-site moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear misconduct the central feature of an agreement is astonishingly foolish, even for an administration like President Obama’s that is naturally supine in foreign affairs.

The administration’s characterization of North Korea’s end of the announced bargain as demonstrating North Korea’s “commitment to denuclearization” is an insult to the intelligence of even a person with casual knowledge of North Korea’s dispersed nuclear-weapons and missile programs. Can it be that the administration heralds the bargain because this feature will allow it to claim victory even if the same North Korean illegal and dangerous activities continue elsewhere on the peninsula? Is the administration’s desire to declare a foreign-policy success so great as to be that myopic? One can imagine President Obama in such circumstances declaring that the agreement was “a good start.”

The U.S. promise to supply North Korea with 240,000 metric tons of food aid as part of the bargain also is more than suspect. Wholly apart from whether North Korea needs food aid it would be able to buy food on the world market if it redirected the money it uses for its national nuclear-weapons and missile programs virtually all international food aid it previously has received has been diverted from the intended beneficiaries to the purposes of the North Korean elites and military. The intended beneficiaries are North Korean people who are in need of food, the portion of the population the supreme leader (and his father and grandfather before him) categorizes under the North Korean songbun system as politically disloyal and thereby not worthy of being provided with food and other necessaries. Given that the U.S. announced its promise of the food aid without details, it probably is too much to hope that the details will address this details about what is to be distributed and how distribution is to be monitored so that intended beneficiaries actually receive and are allowed to use the aid.

It is naïve at best for the administration to herald a North Korean “commitment to denuclearization” after the many years of North Korean actions definitively proving the contrary. In light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary that the Kim family regime has given over the years, it is especially foolish for the administration to have reaffirmed that the U.S. has no hostile intent toward Pyongyang.

The U.S. declaration of policy regarding North Korea should be that it will do all it can, short of initiating a war against North Korea, to stave off the dangers the Kim family regime poses to and inflicts on the North Korean people, North Korea’ s neighbors, and the victims of proliferation.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
Since BO had no major agreement to sign with NK there was no reason to meet. A meeting between the U.S. and NK had been viewed as a reward for NK by BO and prior U.S. presidents. Trump likes photo ops so he'll meet with about anybody particularly despotic Communist rulers regardless of whether there is any negotiating progress.

I have shared two articles, one during a debate where he says he should meet with NK with no agreed upon outcomes and another where he actually did have an agreement that at the time Obama touted as a great deal that would deter NK from building nukes. What else is left for me to show you?
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
I have shared two articles, one during a debate where he says he should meet with NK with no agreed upon outcomes and another where he actually did have an agreement that at the time Obama touted as a great deal that would deter NK from building nukes. What else is left for me to show you?
Why are you showing me anything? This thread is simple. Article says Trump lied (he did lie) about BO wanting to meet with KJU and you don't refute that. You said BO never engaged NK (he did) but then you showed that BO did engage them though BO never met KJU. The end.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
Why are you showing me anything? This thread is simple. Article says Trump lied (he did lie) about BO wanting to meet with KJU and you don't refute that. You said BO never engaged NK (he did) but then you showed that BO did engage them though BO never met KJU. The end.

Orange man bad, Obama good, got it.
 

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,505
3,167
113
...or Orange man lies repeatedly, uneducated idiots take it as gospel every time, everyone else rolls eyes and says, "Jesus ****ing Christ."

In this tread, it was reported that Obama never wanted to meet with NK and that Trump was lying. Two articles were posted:
  • During a Presidential debate Obama said that he should try and meet with NK within his first year in office and with unconditional terms. I guess he lied, because now, it is being reported that he never reached out-never intended to.
  • He brokered a deal with NK giving them billions in food and supplies with NK agreeing to halt their nuclear program. It was reported at the time to be a deal that cemented nuclear peace with the hermit kingdom for years to come. I guess he never asked to meet but was comfortable in giving them billions for a international victory which was broken after they received all of the goods.
So, either Trump is lying or Obama broke a campaign promise and then cut the worst deal regarding nuclear disarmament in the history of the world (not including Iran). Trump has more than once said that Obama was more worried about NK than any other county in the world. Maybe Obama told him that he tried to meet with NK to no avail, but in reality he never tried...Given his work ethic while in office, I think this was the case.
 

BoremanSouth

Redshirt
Jul 28, 2016
1,715
0
0
In this tread, it was reported that Obama never wanted to meet with NK and that Trump was lying. Two articles were posted:
  • During a Presidential debate Obama said that he should try and meet with NK within his first year in office and with unconditional terms. I guess he lied, because now, it is being reported that he never reached out-never intended to.
  • He brokered a deal with NK giving them billions in food and supplies with NK agreeing to halt their nuclear program. It was reported at the time to be a deal that cemented nuclear peace with the hermit kingdom for years to come. I guess he never asked to meet but was comfortable in giving them billions for a international victory which was broken after they received all of the goods.
So, either Trump is lying or Obama broke a campaign promise and then cut the worst deal regarding nuclear disarmament in the history of the world (not including Iran). Trump has more than once said that Obama was more worried about NK than any other county in the world. Maybe Obama told him that he tried to meet with NK to no avail, but in reality he never tried...Given his work ethic while in office, I think this was the case.


Jesus ******* Christ.