PartyBear said:

---

So we are going to protect Un's regime from the people of NK seriously?? We are so desperate to get Un back to the table that we are promising something that stupid? Fortunately its Trump so you can be rest assured it is a lie.

---

Where does it say that?

Your Trump hate is so strong you take a tweet of a few words and read into it about 1000 other words that are no where there or hinted at.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/17/indian-minister-of-state-for-external-affairs-vk-singh-in-north-korea.html

cowboycwr said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

So we are going to protect Un's regime from the people of NK seriously?? We are so desperate to get Un back to the table that we are promising something that stupid? Fortunately its Trump so you can be rest assured it is a lie.

---

Where does it say that?

Your Trump hate is so strong you take a tweet of a few words and read into it about 1000 other words that are no where there or hinted at.

---

Great explanation of these guys hate

There's gotta be a mental illness we could label these people as having???

We may finally have an ambassador to South Korea soon.

Both sides are saying it's up to the other whether or not the meeting will happen.

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Make the deal and pull our troops out of South Korea.

If after almost 70 years since the Korean War ....the South still can't defend themselves ...that's their problem.

After all there aren't 35,000 Chinese or Russian troops in the North.

Get our guys OUT.

Nope it is ridiculous to add appeasment to Kim to our already having legitimized him. He comes to the table on our terms.

PartyBear said:

---

Nope it is ridiculous to add appeasment to Kim to our already having legitimized him. He comes to the table on our terms.

---

Its ridiculous to defend another country for 70 years with tens of thousands of our troops .

Pull them out.....if Kim gets nuclear stupid down the road...it won't be our people getting vaporized and the US can take whatever military response it chooses .

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Make the deal and pull our troops out of South Korea.

If after almost 70 years since the Korean War ....the South still can't defend themselves ...that's their problem.

After all there aren't 35,000 Chinese or Russian troops in the North.

Get our guys OUT.

---

That would be a huge thing to give up. It would mean ceding a lot of influence in the region to China, at a time when they are already asserting themselves aggressively. In the long term, it would probably bring the entire Korean Peninsula under China's umbrella. 24k troops stationed in SK with 0 annual combat casualties is about as low cost as military investments ever get, it's absolutely worth maintaining it and the foothold it provides as long as the South Koreans will allow us to.

HuMcK said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Make the deal and pull our troops out of South Korea.

If after almost 70 years since the Korean War ....the South still can't defend themselves ...that's their problem.

After all there aren't 35,000 Chinese or Russian troops in the North.

Get our guys OUT.

---

That would be a huge thing to give up. It would mean ceding a lot of influence in the region to China, at a time when they are already asserting themselves aggressively. In the long term, it would probably bring the entire Korean Peninsula under China's umbrella. 24k troops stationed in SK with 0 annual combat casualties is about as low cost as military investments ever get, it's absolutely worth maintaining it and the foothold it provides as long as the South Koreans will allow us to.

---

US Korean policy is hamstrung by North Korea's ability to attack our troops stationed on the peninsula ( often within 10 miles of the border ) with nuclear weapons .

In reality those troops are less of a deterrent and more akin to hostages .

Get those troops away from the possibly of nuclear vaporization and it frees US military options throughout the entire region.

Canada2017 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Make the deal and pull our troops out of South Korea.

If after almost 70 years since the Korean War ....the South still can't defend themselves ...that's their problem.

After all there aren't 35,000 Chinese or Russian troops in the North.

Get our guys OUT.

---

That would be a huge thing to give up. It would mean ceding a lot of influence in the region to China, at a time when they are already asserting themselves aggressively. In the long term, it would probably bring the entire Korean Peninsula under China's umbrella. 24k troops stationed in SK with 0 annual combat casualties is about as low cost as military investments ever get, it's absolutely worth maintaining it and the foothold it provides as long as the South Koreans will allow us to.

---

US Korean policy is hamstrung by North Korea's ability to attack our troops stationed on the peninsula ( often within 10 miles of the border ) with nuclear weapons .

In reality those troops are less of a deterrent and more akin to hostages .

Get those troops away from the possibly of nuclear vaporization and it frees US military options throughout the entire region.

---

Given the Hwasong-14 and -15 are ICBMs where do you think our troops should go to get away? Vermont?
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile-maps-infographics/

I'll be honest I thought the meeting would still happen.

HuMcK said:

---

I'll be honest I thought the meeting would still happen.

---

Yeah, I also thought the odds were in favor of it happening, and I hoped it would.

I give Trump credit for trying, and I don't blame him for the effort failing, though I would have preferred that he let NK be the one to call it off.

Trump did an endzone dance without the ball.
The reason Obama didn't bother with Trump's stupidity was due to the fact rocket man has already made it clear he will not do what Trump insists will be part of the deal.

but, he already awarded himself the Nobel Prize

J.R. said:

---

but, he already awarded himself the Nobel Prize

---

Premature Nobelization

As usual these days, our allies were the dark on the decision making process.

Wow

Surprise surprise all of a sudden libs come out, mostly basking(except bubba & HuMck), even though this is not a good thing for them and their country

That's assuming they're American citizens

People do not understand negotiating. This is just another step. It is getting Kim to realize he has to tone down his talk if he wants a meeting to happen. Hopefully he does and then a meeting could still happen. This does not mean Trump is cancelling any chance of a future meeting. Just the currently scheduled one... which could still be rescheduled and held.

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Make the deal and pull our troops out of South Korea.

If after almost 70 years since the Korean War ....the South still can't defend themselves ...that's their problem.

After all there aren't 35,000 Chinese or Russian troops in the North.

Get our guys OUT.

---

There aren't those troops there now. But what is preventing them from going once North Korea decides to attack once we leave?

Nothing. But with our troops there it prevents North Korea from attacking.

Canada2017 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Nope it is ridiculous to add appeasment to Kim to our already having legitimized him. He comes to the table on our terms.

---

Its ridiculous to defend another country for 70 years with tens of thousands of our troops .

Pull them out.....if Kim gets nuclear stupid down the road...it won't be our people getting vaporized and the US can take whatever military response it chooses .

---

Ummm they have missiles that can reach Okinawa, Hawaii, and reportedly the West Coast.

So do you recommend we pull our troops from all of those locations as well?

Florda_mike said:

---

Wow

Surprise surprise all of a sudden libs come out, mostly basking(except bubba & HuMck), even though this is not a good thing for them and their country

That's assuming they're American citizens

---

Not a surprise really. They bashed him for scheduling the meeting... now they attack him for cancelling it.

As I saw somewhere before if Trump came out in support of oxygen Dems would rather suffocate than admit oxygen is needed to live.

Nice try, not unexpected. I'm sure the bureaucrats made some progress and at least the two sides spoke.

Maybe next time POTUS will listen to the pros at State, muzzle Bolton, and get everybody on the same ****ing page.

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

I would consider myself in the same boat as you.

But there is something VERY different with Trump vs. anyone prior.

Democrats make deals just so they can say that they made a deal, and they always turn out to be bad, whether it was the Iran deal or TPP or NAFTA, trade deals...we always lose in the deal.

Trump is willing to walk away from a deal, instead of making a bad one

I think as a society, we have grown accustomed to this: going through the motions to save face and to "do the right thing".

So we think the president needs to behave in a certain manner based on narrative instead of results. And its a HUGE problem.

Bill Clinton went on national TV and told the world North Korea had a deal that they would end their nuclear program. Bill Clinton continued to give North Korea energy, food and money in return for this and the media praised it. That's getting played. Trump has given them nothing.

To me that is lying, lacking character, leadership and integrity: when your narrative falls apart. That is WAY worse than anything Trump has said or done.

At the end of the day all that MATTERS are RESULTS. That's it. Just results.

So far Trump has delivered BIGLY in many arenas.

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

I would consider myself in the same boat as you.

But there is something VERY different with Trump vs. anyone prior.

Democrats make deals just so they can say that they made a deal, and they always turn out to be bad, whether it was the Iran deal or TPP or NAFTA, trade deals...we always lose in the deal.

Trump is willing to walk away from a deal, instead of making a bad one

I think as a society, we have grown accustomed to this: going through the motions to save face and to "do the right thing".

So we think the president needs to behave in a certain manner based on narrative instead of results. And its a HUGE problem.

Bill Clinton went on national TV and told the world North Korea had a deal that they would end their nuclear program. Bill Clinton continued to give North Korea energy, food and money in return for this and the media praised it. That's getting played. Trump has given them nothing.

To me that is lying, lacking character, leadership and integrity: when your narrative falls apart. That is WAY worse than anything Trump has said or done.

At the end of the day all that MATTERS are RESULTS. That's it. Just results.

So far Trump has delivered BIGLY in many arenas.

---

The Art(lessness) of tbe Deal(breaker).

Trump has delivered hostages and regulatory relief.

Hillary is uncharged.

Nobody, least of all Mexico, is paying for his beautiful wall.

Trumpcare, gag me.

Debt. Trillions in debt.

Creating vacuums for China, Russia and Iran.

Chaos in his administration.

Childish tweets.

Debt. Bigly.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

---

Please tell me u don't think Obama had character. He and his administration were some of the dirtiest corrupt politicians in US history and that's not an exaggeration nor does it even count what is about to be exposed about him.

George HW most would say had good character. W was also an honorable man but no politician is clean just like none of us are either if 100% of our past was exposed like most politicians.

riflebear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

---

Please tell me u don't think Obama had character. He and his administration were some of the dirtiest corrupt politicians in US history and that's not an exaggeration nor does it even count what is about to be exposed about him.

George HW most would say had good character. W was also an honorable man but no politician is clean just like none of us are either if 100% of our past was exposed like most politicians.

---

I didn't mention Ford, Bush, Bush or Obama.

We didn't elect Ford

Daddy Bush ran the CIA. To do that job well, I think you must deceive people.

Bush 2.0 had a history that I wouldn't be proud of but, he did overcome it.

Obama seems like a good family guy who was more than willing to let other's do his dirty work. I'm guessing he has a tattoo that reads "Plausible Deniability". While a bunch of those that surrounded O are about to look very crooked, none of them will turn on O. He is their savior and thus, the tattoo comment.

riflebear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

---

Please tell me u don't think Obama had character. He and his administration were some of the dirtiest corrupt politicians in US history and that's not an exaggeration nor does it even count what is about to be exposed about him.

George HW most would say had good character. W was also an honorable man but no politician is clean just like none of us are either if 100% of our past was exposed like most politicians.

---

please don't tell me you are this stupid.... or if you are, that you are like Canada and Mike and haven't been on the Baylor campus in your life....

if Obama and his minions were so obviously dirty, where are the porn stars? the playboy bunnies? the indictments? the convictions?

I know you hate him with every fiber of your being and that you wish beyond all that he was dirty, but where is the proof?

your hate don't mean **** in court

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

riflebear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

---

Please tell me u don't think Obama had character. He and his administration were some of the dirtiest corrupt politicians in US history and that's not an exaggeration nor does it even count what is about to be exposed about him.

George HW most would say had good character. W was also an honorable man but no politician is clean just like none of us are either if 100% of our past was exposed like most politicians.

---

please don't tell me you are this stupid.... or if you are, that you are like Canada and Mike and haven't been on the Baylor campus in your life....

if Obama and his minions were so obviously dirty, where are the porn stars? the playboy bunnies? the indictments? the convictions?

I know you hate him with every fiber of your being and that you wish beyond all that he was dirty, but where is the proof?

your hate don't mean **** in court

---

- I'm a BU grad so I'm not sure what that meant about me not being on campus, even if I wasn't it's not relevant to this discussion. and I don't 'hate' Obama, I just think he's corrupt and did a horrible job as President and we're still paying for the consequences of his actions.

- One thing I respect about liberals is they circle up and are loyal and follow each other even if that means lying til the day u die. If Obama had a GOP Attorney General & head of the FBI then I guarantee u there would have been investigations. If Trump had an AG & Head of FBI w/ a backbone there would be no Mueller investigation.

- Obamacare - BIG LIE
- Stance on Gay Marriage - BIG LIE
- Fast & Furious - BIG LIE
- IRS Targeting - BIG LIE
- Benghazi - HUGE LIE
- Spied on Journalists - BIG LIE
- Clinton Server/e-mails - BIG LIE
- NSA Spying - BIG LIE
- Race Relations - divided the country like never before
- IRAN CLUSTER
- Remember the CO River - they even lied to cover that up
TO BE CONTINUED - Might be bigger than anything on this list which is scary.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

riflebear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

J.R. said:

---

If's intellectually dishonest to label everyone here who does not support everything the Trumps does as "Liberal" or "Libtard". I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure it goes for others...I'm no liberal, regardless how you term it. I'm a card carrying Independent, but lean right on economic issues and left on social issues. I personally don't disagree with all Trumps policies, but more I reject him as a terrible representation of our country. Why yo say? Simple. He's a liar, lacks character, lacks leadership, lacks integrity, he's a bully, he's a cheat, he's narcissist, he's petulant. He's just a bad dude that is really, really hard to respect. That doesn't make me a "liberal". Everyone doesn't fit into a box.

---

wait. Were you describing Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon or Clinton?

The only president in my lifetime who had very respectable character was Carter. He was a crappy president.

---

Were you dead from 2009-2016?

---

Please tell me u don't think Obama had character. He and his administration were some of the dirtiest corrupt politicians in US history and that's not an exaggeration nor does it even count what is about to be exposed about him.

George HW most would say had good character. W was also an honorable man but no politician is clean just like none of us are either if 100% of our past was exposed like most politicians.

---

please don't tell me you are this stupid.... or if you are, that you are like Canada and Mike and haven't been on the Baylor campus in your life....

if Obama and his minions were so obviously dirty, where are the porn stars? the playboy bunnies? the indictments? the convictions?

I know you hate him with every fiber of your being and that you wish beyond all that he was dirty, but where is the proof?

your hate don't mean **** in court

---

Thanks again for the mention

I'm very proud of you for being on Baylor campus so much and apparently even having what it takes to graduate

Hope life has been great for you simply because of all of that

And I'm really happy all that's helped you with your self-esteem and humility as well

Have a nice day ......