'We are not making sufficient progress': Trump directs Pompeo to cancel North Korea trip

[DB]

Roamer, it seems to me that the foundation of your criticism is this: that I,  FW, am unable to recognize/identify hatred when I see it.

Needless to say, I reject that opinion. Here's why.

There are two ways for any of us to approach another person. A, is the empathetic approach. This involves giving others the same benefit of the doubt that we like to receive ourselves, and it most particularly involves NOT assigning bad motives to people whose motives are known only to themselves and to God. Another component of this approach is a refusal to legalisticallly pick a person apart at the seams, which again is only putting the Golden Rule into practice.

B is the aggressive prosecutor approach: anything you say can and WILL be used against you. This approach, while entirely appropriate in the courtroom, is simply a prescription for misunderstanding and vilifying people in the broader context. If we see our job as putting every word, action and thought of another person under the microscope to the ends of publicly criticizing them, that is the antithesis of love. It isn't even close to neutrality, either.

Rather, it is hate. That is my 100% firm conviction, and I speak circumspectly, not off the cuff. I.e.: I have considered this long and hard and drawn my conclusions. I don't ask everyone to agree with me. It would be nice, however, if I could express my truest conclusions without having them labeled BS. A simple, "I see it differently," would suffice.

Dismissing the argument by claiming "hater" is just the cowards way of "winning". Nothing is refuted, simply dismissed. A short cut to avoid the work of thinking.

Every lie Trump spews you people justify as some sort of negotiating tactic. The ends justify the means. Every lie you defend only debases you further. There's no end to what lies can be told as long as the claimed ends justify them, the line always shifts to more lies getting further and further away from truth. It's for a good cause and all...

Every liar thinks their lies are justified for some higher purpose. Supporters of history's tyrants all thought they were serving a greater good. Truth be damned.

Carry on.

[roamer_1]

Roamer, it seems to me that the foundation of your criticism is this: that I,  FW, am unable to recognize/identify hatred when I see it.

Needless to say, I reject that opinion. Here's why.

There are two ways for any of us to approach another person. A, is the empathetic approach. This involves giving others the same benefit of the doubt that we like to receive ourselves, and it most particularly involves NOT assigning bad motives to people whose motives are known only to themselves and to God. Another component of this approach is a refusal to legalisticallly pick a person apart at the seams, which again is only putting the Golden Rule into practice.

B is the aggressive prosecutor approach: anything you say can and WILL be used against you. This approach, while entirely appropriate in the courtroom, is simply a prescription for misunderstanding and vilifying people in the broader context. If we see our job as putting every word, action and thought of another person under the microscope to the ends of publicly criticizing them, that is the antithesis of love. It isn't even close to neutrality, either.

Rather, it is hate. That is my 100% firm conviction, and I speak circumspectly, not off the cuff. I.e.: I have considered this long and hard and drawn my conclusions. I don't ask everyone to agree with me. It would be nice, however, if I could express my truest conclusions without having them labeled BS. A simple, "I see it differently," would suffice.

@Fantasywriter
And which of those two means of approaching another person would apply when using the term 'hater'?

Doesn't that in fact dismiss anything the person has to say (that is without a doubt what it intends)? If I am a 'hater', no one needs to listen to what I say, and one can feel justified in flatly ignoring the case. How then is that 'an empathetic way of giving the other person the benefit of the doubt'? It is not. And since you yourself have defined 'only two ways'...

And while there are plenty here who boorishly assume and pound out their rhetoric with blunted thumbs, I know you to be differently enabled - You have a fine grasp of the English language, and of the art of authorship, so I will call you out on it. In your case, it can only be an intentional slight.

I do not hate Tump. I have taken a principled and conservative stand in opposition. To call it 'hate' intentionally stifles the lively debate that is the first cause of liberty. You may certainly proceed as you see fit, but in continuing as you are, my opinion of your ability will be greatly diminished.

[roamer_1]

Dismissing the argument by claiming "hater" is just the cowards way of "winning". Nothing is refuted, simply dismissed. A short cut to avoid the work of thinking.

That is right. It's just lazy.

[LegalAmerican]

Not ONCE, did president Trump say it was all settled.  NOT ONCE. He always said.  'WE WILL SEE'.  70 years, DECADES. of other presidents, doing nothing.  NOTHING.  This man is trying to work with NK.  and all he gets is negative, mocking reports, from all the anti-Americans.  THAT, is how I see it.  18 months in and 93% negative propaganda and lies and slander about the man. Some fall for it and think they are 'smart".

[DCPatriot]

Not ONCE, did president Trump say it was all settled.  NOT ONCE. He always said.  'WE WILL SEE'.  70 years, DECADES. of other presidents, doing nothing.  NOTHING.  This man is trying to work with NK.  and all he gets is negative, mocking reports, from all the anti-Americans.  THAT, is how I see it.  18 months in and 93% negative propaganda and lies and slander about the man. Some fall for it and think they are 'smart".

@LegalAmerican

Take it easy.   This was merely case 2018-229 where they appear as fools, in their rush to shout "We told you so!"

It's like a false start at an Olympics pool.   It's quite comical at this point.

[INVAR]

Roamer, it seems to me that the foundation of your criticism is this: that I,  FW, am unable to recognize/identify hatred when I see it.

Needless to say, I reject that opinion. Here's why.

There are two ways for any of us to approach another person. A, is the empathetic approach. This involves giving others the same benefit of the doubt that we like to receive ourselves, and it most particularly involves NOT assigning bad motives to people whose motives are known only to themselves and to God. Another component of this approach is a refusal to legalisticallly pick a person apart at the seams, which again is only putting the Golden Rule into practice.

B is the aggressive prosecutor approach: anything you say can and WILL be used against you. This approach, while entirely appropriate in the courtroom, is simply a prescription for misunderstanding and vilifying people in the broader context. If we see our job as putting every word, action and thought of another person under the microscope to the ends of publicly criticizing them, that is the antithesis of love. It isn't even close to neutrality, either.

Rather, it is hate. That is my 100% firm conviction, and I speak circumspectly, not off the cuff. I.e.: I have considered this long and hard and drawn my conclusions. I don't ask everyone to agree with me. It would be nice, however, if I could express my truest conclusions without having them labeled BS. A simple, "I see it differently," would suffice.

 I would bet dollars to donuts that your sentiments expressed above, were never employed in such grace when it came to Obama or Hillary.

I think, as has been demonstrated so often on these kinds of threads - that it is perfectly okay when you or your guy in office does the very things you went berserk over when Obama and co. were doing it.

[INVAR]

Not ONCE, did president Trump say it was all settled.  NOT ONCE. He always said.  'WE WILL SEE'. 

That is just another bold-faced LIE.

Here is what he himself stated, I will post it again, and again and again if I have to:



"THERE IS NO LONGER A NUCLEAR THREAT FROM NORTH KOREA".

There is nothing in there that says: "We will wait and see".  That, is a LIE.

[DB]

They can test their hypocrisy but substituting Clinton's or Obama's name for Trump's name in the Tweet you quoted above... I don't think they can honestly do that though.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Scott Adams's podcast from this morning spent a good deal of time on "fact" (always disputed) vs. directional persuasion.  This may help explain what's going on in this "debate".

The podcast is easy enough to find on YouTube, if interested.

[INVAR]

They can test their hypocrisy but substituting Clinton's or Obama's name for Trump's name in the Tweet you quoted above... I don't think they can honestly do that though.

I recall many of these same Trump fanatics having field days tearing apart statements and tweets and comments made by Democrats during the Obama years.  They didn't buy all the Harfian-Earnest spin attempted to be placed upon those things either, they rightfully tore all the excuses to shreds.

But, now that it's Trump - why - we must be silent when overt bullshit is tweeted, and we must spin what they want to believe Trump really meant to say.

Just more of 'It's okay when WE DO IT!"

[DCPatriot]

That is just another bold-faced LIE.

Here is what he himself stated, I will post it again, and again and again if I have to:



"THERE IS NO LONGER A NUCLEAR THREAT FROM NORTH KOREA".

There is nothing in there that says: "We will wait and see".  That, is a LIE.

Everybody that can fog a mirror.....'cept you that is, knows what Pres. Trump did there.

"...North Korea has, great POTENTIAL for the future".

[INVAR]

Everybody that can fog a mirror.....'cept you that is, knows what Pres. Trump did there.

Yeah, he LIED to get applause and take a victory lap.

The only fog-heads that refuse to accept plain English are you Trump fanatics.

"Everyone can feel much safer than the day I took office.  There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea".

You can spin that prettier than a twenty dollar whore like Josh Earnest could - but those words your man Trump's thumbs tweeted are plain.

Feel safe - there's no more threat.

You shame yourself attempting to spin that into whatever this convoluted bullshit dimensional chess you insist Trump was playing there.

[catfish1957]

Yeah, he LIED to get applause and take a victory lap.

The only fog-heads that refuse to accept plain English are you Trump fanatics.

"Everyone can feel much safer than the day I took office.  There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea".

You can spin that prettier than a twenty dollar whore like Josh Earnest could - but those words your man Trump's thumbs tweeted are plain.

Feel safe - there's no more threat.

You shame yourself attempting to spin that into whatever this convoluted bullshit dimensional chess you insist Trump was playing there.

Got to be what he meant because Trump stated he uses all the best words.

[DB]

Everybody that can fog a mirror.....'cept you that is, knows what Pres. Trump did there.

"...North Korea has, great POTENTIAL for the future".

The simple truth is "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea" and "North Korea has a great potential for the future" are two different things with far different implications.

NK getting rid of its nukes doesn't mean they'd have a great future. Under Kim Jong they wouldn't. It would simply mean NK got rid of their nukes and was no longer a nuclear threat to the United States, essentially what Trump claimed, all the while NK could continue being the shithole it is. The same shithole it was before acquiring nukes. For NK to have a "great future" a lot more than getting rid of nuclear weapons would have to take place. But you already know that and are trying to obfuscate the truth of it.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Everybody that can fog a mirror.....'cept you that is, knows what Pres. Trump did there.

"...North Korea has, great POTENTIAL for the future". 

   I agree @DCPatriot

But I think this thread has reached the point where the children are too agitated and nothing's getting through.  Now it's best to just let them wear themselves out. 

[DCPatriot]

  I agree @DCPatriot

But I think this thread has reached the point where the children are too agitated and nothing's getting through.  Now it's best to just let them wear themselves out.

Exactly.

The big, bad bully goes all magnanimous by petting NK on the head saying they have great potential now...that they've promised/assured us that they are going to dismantle their nuclear program.

If they don't.... that "POTENTIAL" was wasted.

Yes...they're all children throwing tantrums....let them tire themselves out.   

[LegalAmerican]

No bold faced lie;
--------------
With regard to other countries

In early October, Trump, while posing for a photo with military leaders made a reference to "the calm before the storm." This spurred days of questions about what he meant and whether he was referring to North Korea. Trump's response boiled down to*** "we'll see what happens."


***"We're going to see what happens with North Korea. That's all I can say. We're going to see what happens. We're totally prepared for numerous things. We are going to see what happens with North Korea."***


Back in April, he said much the same thing when asked in an interview on Fox News whether he had ruled out a military strike against North Korea.


"I don't want to telegraph what I'm doing, or what I'm thinking. I'm not like other administrations, where they say we're going to do this in four weeks and that. ... It doesn't work that way. ****We'll see what happens.*** I hope things work out well. I hope there's going to be peace, but you know. They've been talking with this gentleman for a long time."
In a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump was asked whether he would he reconsider his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

"Something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord.**** We'll see what happens.**** But we will talk about that over the coming period of time. And if it happens, that'll be wonderful. And if it doesn't, that'll be OK too. But we'll see what happens. But we did discuss many things today, including the cease-fire in Syria. We discussed the Ukraine. We discussed a lot of different topics. We briefly hit on the Paris Accord, and we'll see what happens, OK?"
While meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Oval Office on Oct. 11, Trump was asked about ongoing negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"We're negotiating a NAFTA deal. It's time, after all of these years, and*** we'll see what happens.*** It's possible we won't be able to make a deal, and it's possible that we will."
In an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, Trump was asked about how he was going to handle the Iran nuclear deal, a decision that had already been made and was announced two days later.

"Worst deal I've ever seen. We will see what happens pretty soon."
At a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump was asked about his campaign pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

"As far as the embassy moving to Jerusalem, I'd love to see that happen. We're looking at it very, very strongly. We're looking at it with great care — great care, believe me. And we'll see what happens."

[bigheadfred]

 

 

ADULTERY IS A SIN

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR KATE AND EDITH TOO

/

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

[INVAR]

No bold faced lie;

Here again - from Trump's OWN thumbs:



"THERE IS NO LONGER A NUCLEAR THREAT FROM NORTH KOREA".

There is nothing in there that says: "We will see". He made a definitive statement of fact, and told us we could feel safer and sleep well because they were no longer a threat.

Spinning it five hundred ways from yesterday by citing Trump comments months before he met with Lil' Kim, doesn't belay the fact that this Tweet he sent out June 13, at 5:56 AM makes a definitive claim that you now want everyone to pretend Trump never really meant to say.

You Trump fanatics are making the Democrats look like amateurs in the ridiculous Spin Department of overt bullshit.

[Fantasywriter]

Dismissing the argument by claiming "hater" is just the cowards way of "winning". Nothing is refuted, simply dismissed. A short cut to avoid the work of thinking.

Every lie Trump spews you people justify as some sort of negotiating tactic. The ends justify the means. Every lie you defend only debases you further. There's no end to what lies can be told as long as the claimed ends justify them, the line always shifts to more lies getting further and further away from truth. It's for a good cause and all...

Every liar thinks their lies are justified for some higher purpose. Supporters of history's tyrants all thought they were serving a greater good. Truth be damned.

Carry on.

I said nothing about arguing. In fact, I said just the opposite. This is the problem with NTers; they are too caught up in hate to even read the actual words of Trump supporters.

[Fantasywriter]

@Fantasywriter
And which of those two means of approaching another person would apply when using the term 'hater'?

Doesn't that in fact dismiss anything the person has to say (that is without a doubt what it intends)? If I am a 'hater', no one needs to listen to what I say, and one can feel justified in flatly ignoring the case. How then is that 'an empathetic way of giving the other person the benefit of the doubt'? It is not. And since you yourself have defined 'only two ways'...

And while there are plenty here who boorishly assume and pound out their rhetoric with blunted thumbs, I know you to be differently enabled - You have a fine grasp of the English language, and of the art of authorship, so I will call you out on it. In your case, it can only be an intentional slight.

I do not hate Tump. I have taken a principled and conservative stand in opposition. To call it 'hate' intentionally stifles the lively debate that is the first cause of liberty. You may certainly proceed as you see fit, but in continuing as you are, my opinion of your ability will be greatly diminished.

First, one clarification. I have never alluded to you as a Trump-hater. It's not a blanket designation.  It is a determination that must be made on a case by case basis.

Second, your issue with me is one of the chicken and the egg. You seem to be under the impression that I deem certain people to be Trump-haters, and afterward refuse to read anything they post.

There are two problems with this POV. First, a person must demonstrate that they approach Trump's words, actions and thoughts from a hostile prosecutor's position before I consider their attitude toward him to be hateful. Second, even then I would read their comments as time permits; I simply wouldn't argue with them. I won't argue in those cases bc it is a colossal waste of time. We are all stewards before God of our time. If we are 100% convinced that a certain activity is time intensive while yielding zero positive results, then we are obligated to eschew it. That's not my opinion; that's just following NT teachings.

This is a distinction with a difference.  We're all supposed to live and learn. How many fruitless arguments do people need to engage in before they realize they're fruitless? There must either be some possibility of a productive, beneficial result, or it's just pouring time and energy down a rathole. Even if I could justify such waste before God, my schedule wouldn't accomodate it. There's an old saying, "Pick your battles." It is one that I not only do, but MUST, take to heart. I don't have a practical means of doing otherwise.

[Fantasywriter]

I would bet dollars to donuts that your sentiments expressed above, were never employed in such grace when it came to Obama or Hillary.

I think, as has been demonstrated so often on these kinds of threads - that it is perfectly okay when you or your guy in office does the very things you went berserk over when Obama and co. were doing it.

The POV I expressed applies to Obama and Hillary to the tenth power. By which I mean, it did not and would not occur to me to attempt to argue with a moonbat Leftist to the effect that he or she should become a conservative. Of course I believe they should. But to attempt to argue them into it??? Absolutely not. The odds of such an argument yielding results that would justify the time and effort expended upon it approach zero/the null set. In fact, it would rank right up there among the top five or six ways to expend time in a totally useless activity. In two words: no thanks.

Now I did spend a good deal of time arguing with Obama's most blind and passionately committed sycophants re his eligibility.  It didn't convert a single one of them, let me assure you.  However, what it did do was sharpen my arguments to a razor's edge. And in the end I promulgated an argument they COULD NOT deny or refute. Personally, I consider that a profitable outcome.  Without those heated, ferocious battles I would still believe some of the many myths re Obama's birth. If the Obots did nothing else, they distilled all the faulty arguments away and left me with pure gold.  😁

[roamer_1]

First, one clarification. I have never alluded to you as a Trump-hater. It's not a blanket designation.  It is a determination that must be made on a case by case basis.

Well then, @Fantasywriter , you will have to clarify your criteria, because your post was indeed a blanket statement against 'NTers', and I am certainly caught up in that aggregate, as your fellows have endlessly attested, whether you have or not.

Second, your issue with me is one of the chicken and the egg. You seem to be under the impression that I deem certain people to be Trump-haters, and afterward refuse to read anything they post.

No, what I said was that the use of hater terminology is meant to stifle debate, and that it has the effect of allowing persons to be ignored and summarily dismissed - Whether you do so personally is immaterial to the charge, as the effect is still the same.

There are two problems with this POV. First, a person must demonstrate that they approach Trump's words, actions and thoughts from a hostile prosecutor's position before I consider their attitude toward him to be hateful.

Yet your accusation was against NTers generally.

Second, even then I would read their comments as time permits; I simply wouldn't argue with them. I won't argue in those cases bc it is a colossal waste of time. We are all stewards before God of our time. If we are 100% convinced that a certain activity is time intensive while yielding zero positive results, then we are obligated to eschew it. That's not my opinion; that's just following NT teachings.

Yet you take the time to jeer, using a pejorative term. If you don't have the time, then why take the time to insult folks? Wouldn't it be more time effective to just not say the thing at all, instead of offering comments which will certainly 'get someone's goat'? IOW, don't you invite the very debate you say you have no time for? That must be it, unless you've made up your mind before the fact...

[Fantasywriter]

@Roamer, before going further, please enlighten me as to what pejorative term I used.

Tyia.

[roamer_1]

@Roamer, before going further, please enlighten me as to what pejorative term I used.

Tyia.

@Fantasywriter
Why, 'hater', of course... Extended to terminology like-in-kind.