Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 244 comments are related to the topic:
Trump-Kim Summit
Trump-Kim Summit
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 244
|
By:
But your man won? meaning more people watch or listen to other media outlets that are pro trump
|
|
By:
Spot on, Tim! I noticed that bit of creative manipulation of the truth as well. Infowars? Who watches that? And I haven't even heard of one of the others.
|
|
By:
Yes!
|
|
By:
^^^ to SS
|
|
By:
Who knew that the mirror and the guardian were the only 2 newspapers in the UK now. No wonder times are bad
|
|
By:
Sorry, ignore my last two posts, I misread the question.
The correct answer is; `why would you think that?` Fox is the number one for viewership, and the percentage of people getting their news of The Don on web sites is tiny; it was just that voters saw through the lies they were being spun by MSM. |
|
By:
I get nearly all my information about Trump from BBC and SKY NEWS, I just don't agree with most of it and can see through the lies.
The rest is from reading Chit Chat! You just have to filter through the nonsense to get to the good stuff. |
|
By:
Do you have access to Fox on tv? If not,
www.hulkusd.com/watch-fox-news-live-streaming/ |
|
By:
The lefts ridiculous reaction today has proved exactly why Trump is the president and they're also doing a very good job of getting him re-elected in the near future if this continues.
There's nothing edgy about a Hollywood actor going on stage and screaming "f**k trump" like some sort of two year old. It's shameful and doing the complete opposite to helping there own cause. Also last week we had a multi millionaire in Bill Maher advocating a recession. Saying he'd have no problem what so ever with this as long as this removed Trump from power. All well and good Bill when this wouldn't affect you in the slighest where as the vast majority of your viewers would have there lives turned upside down. It really does just outstand me how dumb some of the things that are said its almost unbelievable. |
|
By:
LBC is the worst for leftist anti-Trump sentiment.
|
|
By:
they have plenty of people to counteract James O'Brien
|
|
By:
So what have they signed exactly? Will Kim be giving up his nukes?
|
|
By:
Yes.
|
|
By:
Kim would be a mug to give up his nuclear weapons.
|
|
By:
Maybe, but he`ll be dead if he doesn`t
|
|
By:
lol it’s very simple , either he gives them up or gets bumped off
Which is it ? |
|
By:
Can't wait to see that woman on N Korea TV giving it large about this climbdown.
|
|
By:
Do you think we are going to stand around , or China or Russia while a lunatic like that has nuclear weapons ?
|
|
By:
If he isn’t careful little rocket man isn’t going to wake up some day
|
|
By:
What assurance do the americans have that Kim will give up the weapons just like that?
What assurance does Kim have that after giving up the weapons, America wouldn't try installing democracy in his land, and thus get rid of him? |
|
By:
Do you think we are going to stand around , or China or Russia while a lunatic like that has nuclear weapons ?
... probably not but Trump will never give them up. |
|
By:
Kim is 34. He has the potential to be there for 4-5 more decades. But if he doesn't have the nukes, he'll be worth nothing, because he won't be a lunatic anymore.
On the other hand, Trump will be there for 6 more years at best. This deal has to be extremely attractive to Kim. Don't know what Trump's offering but would be really surprised if Kim gives up the weapons. 6 years from now Trump won't be there and the deal might mean nothing when the new guy takes office. |
|
By:
The Americans have no assurance; they are, however, dealing with the third Kim, about whom we know very little. Not hard, though, with his people starving by ever greater numbers, everyday increasing the chance of a coup or revolt, to imagine he`s not necessarily as hard line as the two previous Kims, fancies staying alive, and potentially even reunite Korea, with him in charge! Failing that, a healthy population, with aid being thrown at it from its neighbours and the US, becoming the next Singapore will have plenty of appeal. It`s very likely he never really wanted missiles, this has all been a play designed to have the West modernise his country, with a hugely grateful population eternally reverential.
What assurance does Kim have? There are many sorts of international agreements, but if they sign a `treaty`, which will have been passed by Congress, it would be virtually impossible to overthrow. In fact, the only chance it would be overthrown would be if he started at the nukes again, in which case he could have no complaints. Don`t be confused by what obama did, as he introduced many things that didn`t have any real legal weight, stuff he was able to pass on his own steam, without a vote in Congress. He did this as he knew what he was agreeing to would be ripped to pieces, if allowed go before a vote. |
|
By:
In fact, the only chance it would be overthrown would be if he started at the nukes again
He doesn't have to start the nukes again. All america has to do is make it look like he has nukes. Like they did with Iraq. And bang. There goes the deal. There has to be more that Kim is getting. |
|
By:
America don’t want him to have them , Russia don’t want him to have them , China don’t want him to have them
That’s all that needs to be known , he will have to give them up |
|
By:
If he were alive, I`m sure that Red Cloud would disagree with your assessment regarding American treaties being kept timbuctooth.
His famous quote being, "They made with us many treaties but they only kept one when they promised they would take our land". |
|
By:
more recently, in fact the present, ask Iran.
|
|
By:
If America have to worry about him , he can worry about America
That seems to me to be a good arrangement |
|
By:
If Iran was to behave itself then again there is no problem with agreements
|
|
By:
themightymac 12 Jun 18 19:32
more recently, in fact the present, ask Iran. Are you referring to `the Iran deal`? That wan`t a treaty, wasn`t passed by Congress, just one of obama`s helping hands to co-religionists `...If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty? According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is. That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval. "This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty." The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb. It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on. Can the White House avoid Congress? The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise. Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty. "We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing. That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed. Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such." edition.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-treaty-obama-administration/index.html |
|
By:
I never thought I'd say this but fair play to C4 news, who after relegating John Snow to the anti-Brexit slot, have
been quite balanced on the meeting and have even given Trump some credit. Not so at the Beeb though who have been totally negative throughout on both radio and TV. As a previous poster said, if Obama was in charge they'd be calling for a saint hood. |
|
By:
Build Hotels Instead of Bombs ,and we will invest in your Country ,and stop Warships being on the Horizon ,whats not to like ?
|
|
By:
Christ, haven't times changed? If you'd have told me just 3 years ago that the right wing would be cheering the U.S ending the 'war-games' (a standing joke being the N korean rhetoric down the years) and potentially withdrawing U.S troops from the peninsular in return for a bland statement similar to that issued in 1992,1994 and 2005 i think, I wouldn't have believed you 1000 times over. Maybe because if the then U.S president had done it there just might be a different reaction - ever feel you're being manipulated and used fellers?
|
|
By:
You’re not happy because it’s Trump are you ? , ok got it
|
|
By:
America wants its troops out , Trump doesn’t want to spend another 8 years doing nothing
If nothing is resolved too bad , Trump is not worried that’s up to the rest of this part of the world |
|
By:
Don’t think for one minute that America has hang around there forever , they don’t it’s too much trouble
|
|
By:
This morning I was ready to give Trump some credit, but the way his supporters have gone of its like he's solved all famine, world peace, and found the cure for cancer all in one handshake and 5 minute chat with another dictator
 He did well but he's the sodding president, that's supposed to be his bleeding job???. but its only the beginning and having watched it all from start to finish I don't think King Jong Un is even giving up the weapons tbh, and Trump has managed to alienate Canada and France before heading of to singapore, and after this he's probably alienated Japan and South Korea as well So well done, he managed to get Kim to talk, but ruined alliances with two other nations by doing so. |
|
By:
That’s not his job
|
|
By:
spyker 12 Jun 18 21:22
Christ, haven't times changed? If you'd have told me just 3 years ago that the right wing would be cheering the U.S ending the 'war-games' (a standing joke being the N korean rhetoric down the years) and potentially withdrawing U.S troops from the peninsular in return for a bland statement similar to that issued in 1992,1994 and 2005 i think, I wouldn't have believed you 1000 times over. Maybe because if the then U.S president had done it there just might be a different reaction - ever feel you're being manipulated and used fellers? They`re not doing that, though, are they; stop fabricating, please. |
|
By:
Errr its not the presidents job to be diplomatic?
Classic |