Trumpocalypse: No hanky/lanky

You scared?

 

That dopey fucking look on his face

Every. Time.

 

at believing totally destroying North Korea means killing every living person in North Korea.

 

I like Trump complaining about Iran maybe possibly shooting protesters but has nothing to say about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Syria where Assad literally started the whole civil war we're seeing by having snipers shoot into crowds

 

Of course that's not actually a trump issue, but a conservative/Republican issue. He just happens to be the president for this one.

 

iirc he also has some video where he says racism will go away if we stop talking about it so eh

 

So not all the people of North Korea will die, how many must die before it stops being acceptable? What about the people that will die in South Korea? Millions must die because the president wants to look tough?

 

Why are you reduced to comparing the freedom of millions of North Koreans to looking tough?

 

Because we're not fighting for the freedom of millions, it's almost like you don't know shit about US history. I have a some bad news for you, the US is not the global hero you believe them to be, the US has supported some of the most brutal dictators in the past and will continue until the end of time.

 

Where did I say that? Are you hitting the bottle tonight?

 

It always weird me out when Democrats start arguing like Republicans. The US isn't some living organism that makes its own decision. We are the US.

Why does history control how you feel about a situation? It seems like you're fine with the systematic oppression of millions of North Koreans to make your life more convenient.

 

I'm just trying to find out why he believes threatening to destroy an entire country makes the US the good guys.

 

So he can never speak again about anything?

 

Hey Im all in a favor of a regime change in North Korea but am I willing to potentially kick off world war 3 to get it?

nah

 

Alright glad we agree that totally destroying north korea doesn't involve the extermination of 25 million people.

 

So ignore history, that's your rationale? So forget what happened in Iraq when we didn't have a plan besides get rid of Sadam? I bet this time ousting the dictator without a plan will definitely work and not have any repercussions because history never repeats itself.

But let's get back on the original topic, how many millions have to die before it stops being acceptable?

 

Is this a response to my position or to trump's position?

 

Which has what to do with your original position?

 

What's with all of the straw men arguments? Why are you making a false assumption that we wouldn't have a plan to move forward?

I can't answer this. I'm not someone that believes in letting someone else suffer so i'm not inconvenienced.

 

Who would have thought a host of The Man Show would be doing this

 

I literally responded to a post making the assumption 25 million people would be exterminated.

Do you read before you post?

 

Overt military engagement is not an option with North Korea

 

Since when is being informed considered a straw men argument? Trumptards can take Trump at his word but sorry I need more than "terrible, awful" and whatever other shit the idiot in chief has said.

So you don't believe in people suffering so you're not inconvenienced but you're alright with millions dying so you can feel better about yourself? I'm willing to bet that the people of N. Korea value their lives more than your self righteousness.

 

literally never

 

That video is pretty fucking stupid. Maybe pleading with Trump(who obviously was colliding with Russia) will make a difference!

 

How is making an assumption the same as being informed?

Another bad argument. I'm not OopsPowSurprise , I don't need everything to be about me.

 

Logic. Consistency. A watson craves not these things.

 

Did anyone in this thread even listen to what Trump actually said?

 

No, you responded to a tweet that said Trump threatened to exterminate a nation of 25 million people.

1.) Exterminating a nation does not mean that every single person in that nation dies. The point of citing the population total there is to demonstrate that the casualty potential is high in such a conflict.

2.) That, however, is beside the point because the point you tried to make was that being anti-fascism somehow means that you must necessarily support the downfall of any fascist dictator, no matter the context or consequences of doing so. Which is patently absurd. There is literally a logical fallacy named for that exact type of argument: Affirming the consequent.

 

No plan has been even hinted at so stating that there's no plan is not an assumption, now thinking that there is one is a major assumption, especially from the administration that banned transsexual in the military via a tweet.

You've made it all about you, because you don't like to see people suffering you want to go to war with N Korea, but what if war causes more suffering for them? Killing people and destroying homes seems like a terrible way to end people's suffering.

 

Weekly reminder: Watson doesn’t care about the content of an argument. He will change his stance multiple times within the same argument. It will not be an intellectually satisfying enterprise. The merits of an argument or winning/losing it are not important to him. He just wants to argue. Having an argument is all that matters.

Don’t give it to him.

Thanks!

 

Wow. That's a pretty impressive attempt at justifying something. Extermination literally is defined as killing, especially of a whole group of people or animals.

 

at believing that Trump would have the restraint to not send at least one nuke to Pyongyang, which is a population of 3.3mil. Thats no small potatoes and would result in the destruction of North Korea.

 

Again, the extermination of the DPRK does not mean every single person living in the DPRK dies. You can quite clearly exterminate a nation-state without killing every single person living there.

For example, I exterminated a hornet's nest in a tree in my yard the other day. Yet I didn't kill every single hornet in the colony, nor would I have expected to.

You are still obviously wrong here as well, but I'm not surprised to see you trying to drag this argument into the weeds and argue semantics, given how aggressively stupid the original point you tried to make was.

 

You bitches argue about the most retarded shit. We have more important stuff to discuss.

Trump normalized Russia's attack on our elections, and our allies elections by failing to group them in with Iran and NK in his rant today.

That shit is fucking crazy.

 

I'm guessing you really haven't thought this one out? Have we even hinted at an offensive plan to attack North Korea first? Seems odd that we would publicize a succession plan without the former.

Are you always opposed to war?

 

See the wonderful decision to invade Iraq by you guessed it .... a bunch of crazy ass republicans!!!

 

U.S. government officials picked up conversations between former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort and Russian individuals about the 2016 campaign, CBS News reportedTuesday.

This new information comes just one day after a report revealed that the U.S. government had been wiretapping Manafort during and after the 2016 campaign.

It's unclear what information was discussed during those conversations or what ties the Russian individuals had to President Trump or the Russian government.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...nversations-between-manafort-and-russians?amp

 

Whatever man. I have no idea what you're even trying to argue.

 

Yeah. No matter how much I hate republicans, I just can't imagine believing that they would legitimately use a nuclear weapon. Especially one within 80 miles or so away from significant amounts of US troops.