Neelix backs North Korean Dictator in insulting Biden

[clearspira]

What's the choice? Working along with dictators or sacrificing thousands of innocent lives by attacking. The first btw opens the opportunity to change them from within.

[Yukaphile]

The Iran Deal. Democrats signed it, it was Obama's legacy. Trump is completely undoing that, because he's both very stupid, and it's the Republican war-hawk agenda.

[Darth Wedgius]

The Iran Deal. Democrats signed it, it was Obama's legacy. Trump is completely undoing that, because he's both very stupid, and it's the Republican war-hawk agenda.

That's probably fair, overall. The agenda is just your assumption, but it would probably be better for presidents to comply with existing treaties barring overwhelming reason not to.

[Yukaphile]

I'm sure Fuzzy or others could explain it better than me, but... yeah, that's it.

[ProfessorDetective]

The Iran Deal. Democrats signed it, it was Obama's legacy. Trump is completely undoing that, because he's both very stupid, and it's the Republican war-hawk agenda.

That's probably fair, overall. The agenda is just your assumption, but it would probably be better for presidents to comply with existing treaties barring overwhelming reason not to.

There IS an overwhelming reason not to: the last guy signed it.

Let's be honest, that probably at least PART of it.

[Yukaphile]

This is from the same guy who started the birther conspiracy. Call it assumptions all you want, but he hitched his star to the GOP, and he is the driving force behind the hard-liners and their desire to erase Obama from the history books.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

"Idolizing" is in your head, Fuzzy. He's trying to keep good diplomatic relations with them, and hoping for a nuclear deal with North Korea.

Idolizing isn't in my head, it's in the words he uses to describe them to his supporters and associates. It's in the way he talks about them. Assuming this is to keep good diplomatic relations is the charitable assumption made on your part, which doesn't really square with the consistent proof that this man has the diplomatic tact of a baboon with an ass full of live bullet ants.

Why is it so hard to get you to accept ANYTHING about a person's pattern of behavior?

[Darth Wedgius]

"Idolizing" is in your head, Fuzzy. He's trying to keep good diplomatic relations with them, and hoping for a nuclear deal with North Korea.

Idolizing isn't in my head, it's in the words he uses to describe them to his supporters and associates. It's in the way he talks about them. Assuming this is to keep good diplomatic relations is the charitable assumption made on your part, which doesn't really square with the consistent proof that this man has the diplomatic tact of a baboon with an ass full of live bullet ants.

Why is it so hard to get you to accept ANYTHING about a person's pattern of behavior?

Because I require better evidence than someone's supposition.

Take AOC (please). She says she doesn't think it's important for someone to be factually correct as long as they are "morally correct," which amounts to agreeing with her. She also came under fire for certain financial decisions. So she's a charlatan, right? Because I can accept that about her pattern of behavior.

What here indicated a personal admiration of Kim Jong-un? Trump said he thought that the use of a term might be a flag from Kim Jong-Un that he was inclined favorably toward Trump. That really doesn't indicate any admirable traits on the part of Kim Jong-Un.

[Darth Wedgius]

The Iran Deal. Democrats signed it, it was Obama's legacy. Trump is completely undoing that, because he's both very stupid, and it's the Republican war-hawk agenda.

That's probably fair, overall. The agenda is just your assumption, but it would probably be better for presidents to comply with existing treaties barring overwhelming reason not to.

There IS an overwhelming reason not to: the last guy signed it.

Let's be honest, that probably at least PART of it.

That's certainly not impossible, and I wouldn't put it past Trump. There are other explanations, though: a lot of conservatives didn't like the deal, and Trump might have thought so or he might have wanted to score political points with those conservatives.

[Yukaphile]

Because they'd rather bomb a place clean rather than work out negotiations. The GOP is largely more militaristic than the Democrats are, because many of them are in bed with big war companies. I mean, Bush and Cheney proved that. They make war profitable, and since they are in the business of making money and strengthening corporatism, this is just an extension of that. Bomb the world to make it safe for democracy, eh? Same thing Bush did back in the early 2000s. I mean, for flipping fuck's safe, the candidates were discussing WWIII during their debates in 2016! Talking about how the sand would glow with nuclear radiation or some shit like that. And for the hard righters, who are largely evangelical Christians, they hate Islam, so that's bonus points. Only want to bomb a country full of brown people that harbors dangerous terrorists, while ignoring our own homegrown hate groups they encourage with their toxic and carefully coded dialogue. And before you say I'm making assumptions, I am specifically referring to a minority of the GOP and the country itself. The elite few. But they compose the hard right same way the radical Communists, Socialists, free-loaders, and whatever term you wanna use comprise the hard left.